The Taguchi Technique of the Transplanted Kidney Ureter Implantation – Single Centre Experience

Abstract

Taguchi technique of ureteral implantation was used in 22 kidney transplant patients (group T). Group T was compared with 25 patients who were treated using Lich-Gregoir technique (group LG). Immunosuppression, incidence of biopsy evidenced acute cellular rejection (ACR), haematuria rate and ureteral complications (stricture, reflux) were assessed in both groups. The immunosuppression used was based on cyclosporin A (63.6%), tacrolimus (27.3%) and sirolimus (8.1%) in T group. Cyclosporin A (72%), tacrolimus (20%) and sirolimus (8%) were used in LG group. No induction was used. The incidence of ACR was similar in both groups -T resp. LG was 50% resp. 52%. Haematuria after operation was on average 4.0 days in the T group and on average 3.1 in the LG group. Ureteral complications were observed in 18.2% of cases in T group and in 16% of cases in LG group. No reflux was evidenced in any group. Taguchi technique is fast and very easy to do. A slightly higher incidence of ureteral complications and a longer period of postoperative haematuria were observed in T group. Taguchi technique is very easily performed with a shorter operating time. We advocate it as a method of ureteral implantation on the thin-wall urinary bladder. The results were very good in these cases.

Ureterovesical anastomotic techniques for kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…). Twenty‐six studies (12 947 patients) were included in this systematic review, of which two RCTs and 24 observational studies . Study sizes varied between 70 and 2548 patients.…”

“…Twenty‐three studies were included in the meta‐analyses (Table ) . Data were pooled for the LG versus PL comparison and for the LG versus U comparison . The mean prevalence of outcome variables is presented in Table .…”

“…Twenty-three studies were included in the meta-analyses (Table 4) [13][14][15][16][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Data were pooled for the LG versus PL comparison and for the LG versus U comparison [13][14][15][16][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. The mean prevalence of outcome variables is presented in Table 5.…”

Ureteral implantation using a three‐stitch ureteroneocystostomy: description of technique and outcome in nine dogs

“…The key difference between the techniques reported in the human literature and the modified drop‐in technique hinges around whether any length of ureter/periureteral tissue is left exposed within the bladder lumen following implantation. In the one‐stitch techniques described in the human literature, the ureter is implanted so that it is held within an oblique tunnel through the bladder wall so as to minimise exposure to the bladder lumen (Caparrós et al , Lee et al , Pacovsky & Navratil , Kayler et al , Pan et al ). The three‐stitch technique was based on the same principle, but with three stitches to hold the spatulated distal ureter open and flat against the bladder mucosa as an additional effort to reduce periureteral tissue exposure.…”

“…An alternative extravesicular technique that reduces manipulation of the ureter and shortens operative time by leaving out full mucosal apposition (the single U‐stitch technique or one‐stitch technique) was first described in the late 1960s and early 1970s (MacKinnon et al , Shanfield ). This technique allows a significant reduction in surgical time with comparable complication rates (Lee et al , Pacovsky & Navrotil , Pan et al ).…”