Lower urinary tract symptoms and their impact on quality of life after successful renal transplantation.

Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
International Journal of Urology (Impact Factor: 1.73). 03/2009; 16(4):388-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02252.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and their impact on quality of life (QOL) in patients having undergone renal transplantation (RTX).
Forty-three patients (25 males and 18 females; age 20-68 years) undergoing RTX at Hokkaido University Hospital were included in this study. Median follow-up after RTX was 41 months (range 6-184). Pre-transplant dialysis had been carried out in 38 patients (median: 4.3 years, range: 1 month-31 years). All patients were assessed by uroflowmetry (UFM), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), 24 h bladder diary, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). QOL score and King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ) were used for the assessment of LUTS-related QOL.
Mean fluid intake volume and urine output volume for 24 h were 2136 mL (1150-3430 mL) and 2446 mL (1336-4733 mL), respectively. Voiding dysfunction assessed by UFM and PVR was observed in 12 patients (28%) showing higher IPSS. QOL score and overall QOL in KHQ were not different between patients with and without voiding dysfunction. Although 19 (49%) had polyuria, 20 (51%) had nocturnal polyuria, which affected nocturia in IPSS as well as sleep/energy disturbances in KHQ compared with patients without nocturnal polyuria.
Patients having RTX frequently present voiding dysfunction and nocturia basically caused by nocturnal polyuria. We should focus on LUTS in these patients to provide an appropriate management.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder and benign prostatic hyperplasia commonly cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the renal transplant (RTx) population. These LUTS may be masked by low urine output and may pose risk to renal allografts after RTx. Our purpose was to determine the frequency and severity of LUTS in RTx patients and to determine if patients at highest risk for LUTS could be predicted by validated questionnaires or other pre-RTx characteristics. METHODS: All patients who underwent RTx between 2005 and 2010 were asked to complete the validated Overactive Bladder Questionnaire based on patient symptoms before RTx and at 6 and 12 months after RTx. Male patients also completed the International Prostate Symptom Score survey. Patient, donor, and RTx characteristics and outcome data were collected. RESULTS: Of 466 RTx recipients, 23.8% responded and 89 patients were eligible for participation in the study. LUTS were common both before and after RTx as measured by the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire and International Prostate Symptom Score. Pre-RTx survey scores were predictive of moderate to severe post-RTx LUTS (relative risk, 4.1-18.0; P≤0.05). Low urine output of less than 250 mL per day was also predictive of moderate to severe post-RTx LUTS (relative risk, 2.9-5.9; P<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Validated questionnaires and low urine output before transplantation may be used to identify patients at highest risk for LUTS after RTx. Identification of at risk patients would allow earlier initiation of treatment strategies to improve patient quality of life.
    Transplantation 12/2012; · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To assess prospectively the safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients who have undergone renal transplantation (RT). To assess the impact of TURP on renal graft function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Urological and renal functional outcomes of TURP performed in RT recipients for treatment of lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH were prospectively assessed in a series of 32 consecutive patients with follow-up of ≥48 months. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax ) at uroflowmetry, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), haemoglobin and serum creatinine (sCr) levels were recorded before TURP and 1, 6, 24 and 48 months after the procedure. The trends in these variables after TURP were evaluated. Early and delayed complications were assessed and graded according to the Clavien classification system. RESULTS: TURP was performed at a mean of 6 months after RT. No intraoperative complications occurred. Seven postoperative complications were observed (21.9%): two Clavien grade II and five Clavien grade IIIa. Qmax , IPSS and PVR improved significantly after surgery and the improvement was maintained until 48 months. No patient required a repeat TURP during follow-up. SCr levels significantly decreased 1 and 6 months after TURP and did not significantly increase at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TURP for lower urinary tract obstruction attributable to BPH in RT recipients is safe and effective since it improves urinary flow, bladder emptying and related urinary symptoms. TURP allows an early significant improvement of graft function that is maintained at a follow-up of 48 months.
    BJU International 03/2013; · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Historically, urologists were the primary surgeons in renal transplantation. Specialization and increased complexity of the field of transplantation, coupled with a de-emphasis of vascular surgical training in urology, has created a situation where many renal transplants are carried out by surgeons with a general surgery background. Because of its genitourinary nature, however, urological input in renal transplantation is still vital. For living donors, a urologist should be involved to help evaluate and prepare certain patients for eventual donation. This could involve both medical and surgical intervention. Additionally, urologists who carry out living donor nephrectomy maintain a sense of ownership in the renal transplant process and provide a unique opportunity to the trainees of that particular program. For renal transplant recipients, preoperative evaluation of voiding dysfunction and other genitourinary anomalies might be necessary before the transplant. Also, occasional surgical intervention to prepare a patient for renal transplant might be necessary, such as in a patient with a small renal mass that is detected by a screening pretransplant ultrasound. Intraoperatively, for patients with complex urological reconstructions that might be related to the etiology of the renal failure (urinary diversion, bladder augmentation), a urologist who is familiar with the anatomy should be available. Postoperatively, urological evaluation and intervention might be necessary for patients who had a pre-existing urological condition or who might have developed something de novo after the transplant. Although renal transplant programs could consult an on-call urologist for particular issues on an as-needed basis, having a urologist, who has repeated exposure to the particular issues and procedures that are involved with renal transplantation, and who is part of a dedicated multidisciplinary renal transplant team, provides optimal quality of care to these complex patients.
    International Journal of Urology 03/2011; 18(3):185-93. · 1.73 Impact Factor