Search

Objective: To report a single-center 10-year experience of outcomes of kidney transplantation in African Americans (AAs) vs Caucasian Americans (CA) and to propose ways in which to improve kidney transplant outcomes in AAs, increased access to kidney transplantation, prevention of kidney disease, and acceptance of organ donor registration rates in AAs. Methods: We compared outcomes of deceased donor (DD) and living donor (LD) renal transplantation in AAs vs CAs in 772 recipients of first allografts at our transplant center from January 1995 to March 2004. For DD and LD transplants, no significant differences in gender, age, body mass index, or transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) existed between AA and CA recipients. Results: Primary diagnosis of hypertension was more common in AA, DD, and LD recipients. Significant differences for DD transplants included Medicaid insurance in 23% AA compared with 7.0% CA (P <.0001) and more frequent diabetes mellitus type 2 in AAs (15% vs 4.1%, P = .0009). Eighty-three percent of AAs had received hemodialysis compared with 72% of CAs (P = .02). AAs endured significantly longer pretransplant dialysis (911 ± 618 vs 682 ± 526 days CA, P = .0006) and greater time on the waiting list (972 ± 575 vs 637 ± 466 days CA, P <.0001). In DD renal transplants, AAs had more human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches than CAs (4.1 ± 1.4 vs 2.7 ± 2.1, P <.0001). Mean follow-up for survivors was 7.1 ± 2.5 years. Among LD transplants, graft survival and graft function were comparable for AAs and CAs; however, among DD transplants, graft function and survival were substantially worse for AAs (P = .0003). In both LD and DD transplants, patient survival was similar for AAs and CAs. Conclusion: Our data show that AAs receiving allografts from LDs have equivalent short- and long-term outcomes to CAs, but AAs have worse short- and long-term outcomes after DD transplantation. As such, we conclude that AAs should be educated about prevention of kidney disease, the importance of organ donor registration, the merits of LD over DD, and encouraged to seek LD options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report a novel surgical approach of transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal surgery (NOTES) living donor nephrectomy. We conceptualized this approach by incorporating 2 existing concepts: laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and NOTES. Materials and Methods: After thorough consent and under institutional review board approval, a 61-year-old woman volunteered to donate her kidney through hybrid transvaginal NOTES. Under general anesthesia, she was placed in a modified right lateral decubitus position. A SILS port and an 8-mm trocar were placed through the same umbilical incision. The GelPoint port was placed transvaginally via the posterior fornix, and the robot was docked. After dissection of the left kidney in preparation for extraction, the robot was undocked, and the retrieval bag was inserted through the GelPoint port. The graft was bagged before vessel stapling and extracted without breaching the bag. The kidney was delivered to the perfusion table with a clean pair of gloves without contamination with the bag exterior. Results: Donor nephrectomy was successfully completed without conversion or perioperative complications. The total operative time was 240 minutes, the warm ischemic time was 5.8 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 75 mL. No complications occurred and extra ports were not needed. The patient was discharged after an uneventful 48-hour stay. Her creatinine was 1.0 mg/dL at 4 weeks of follow-up. The recipient was given pulse steroids for biopsy-proven acute rejection, and her serum creatinine was 1.16 mg/dL at 4 weeks postoperatively. Conclusion: Transvaginal hybrid NOTES robotic donor nephrectomy is feasible. Additional advances in robotic technology are awaited for development of this approach and to foster its clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To perform a retrospective study to determine the clinical utility of Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) and to determine its role in the management of transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS). Methods: Patients undergoing DUS between January 1998 and January 2001 for clinical suspicion of TRAS were included in the study. A total of 51 patients were divided into two groups according to the peak systolic velocity. Additional management was based on the clinical and DUS findings and their congruence. Patients were followed up and their outcome was analyzed. Results: Of the 51 patients who entered the study, 26 were in the low probability group (LPG) and 25 in the high probability group (HPG). Nine patients in the LPG underwent additional investigations; eight underwent magnetic resonance angiography and one angiography. Of these 9 patients, 6 had stenosis, 4 of whom required angiography. In total, 5 patients from the LPG underwent angioplasty, and 4 of them had stenosis (1 with TRAS, 2 with common iliac artery stenosis, and 1 with renal artery ostial stenosis). Three patients underwent angioplasty and 2 of them improved. In the HPG, 20 of 25 patients underwent additional investigations, including magnetic resonance angiography in 12 and angiography in 8, with stenosis in 15 patients. Of the HPG, 13 of 25 patients underwent angiography, with 10 requiring angioplasty--8 for TRAS and 2 for adjacent renal artery stenosis, with improvement in 8 patients. Congruent clinical and DUS findings were highly predictive of significant stenosis more amenable to improvement. Conclusions: The results of our study have shown that high-probability DUS and congruent clinical findings are likely to identify a significant stenosis that is amenable to treatment. Low-probability DUS findings do not eliminate the possibility of stenosis, but intervention in this group is less likely to result in improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: To assess the patterns of early functional recovery and long-term function in laparoscopic and open procured live donor nephrectomy (LDN) kidneys, highlighting the radionuclide scan as an additional tool for assessment, because of concerns regarding renal functional recovery after laparoscopic LDN. Methods: We reviewed the donor and recipient records of 101 laparoscopic and 35 open LDNs performed between August 1997 and September 2001. Data were collected on demographic, immunologic, and intraoperative variables and ureteral/vascular complications. Delayed renal function recovery in recipients was evaluated by serum creatinine greater than 2.5 mg/dL on postoperative day 5, dialysis in first postoperative week, and two renographic criteria—the time to peak activity and the time to one-half peak activity on postoperative day 5. Long-term outcomes were evaluated by serum creatinine at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and 2 and 3 years, creatinine clearance at 1 year, and patient and allograft survival. Results: Donor and recipient age, sex, body mass index, and number of HLA mismatches did not differ between the two groups. The mean operating room time and blood loss were comparable. No differences were found in the early functional parameters (renography, creatinine at postoperative day 1 and 5, or dialysis in week 1) or long-term outcome (patient and graft survival, creatinine, and rejection at 1 year and patient and graft survival at 1, 2, and 3 years). Conclusions: Early recovery of graft function, longer term renal function, and 3-year patient and allograft survival are similar for live donor kidneys obtained by either a laparoscopic or an open surgical technique. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]