Current status of renal transplantation. Patient evaluations and outcomes

Evidence-Based Complementary Benefit of the Vascular Surgeon Among the Team of Renal Transplantation; a Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

In a kidney transplant tertiary referral center; we compared 3 operating team configurations of different surgical specialties to highlight the effect of the operating surgeon's specialty on various operative details and procedural outcome.

METHODS

A total of 50 cases of living donor transplantations were divided into 3 main groups according to the operating surgeons' specialty, the first group (A) includes 12 patients exclusively operated on by urologists with advanced training in transplantation, the second group (B) includes 35 patients operated by combined surgical specialties; a urologist and a vascular surgeon both with advanced transplantation training, and a third group (C) includes 3 cases where the transplant operation commenced with operating urologists as in group (A) but required intraoperative urgent notification of a vascular surgeon to manage unexpected intraoperative technical difficulties or major complications. Cases were studied according to operative details, anastomosis techniques, ischemia times, total procedure time, recovery of urinary output, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative surgical complications and serum creatinine level for up to 3 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Study of operative details revealed that total duration of graft ischemia was significantly shorter in group (B) and significantly longer in group (C) (P value 0.001), Total procedural duration also varied significantly between the 3 groups, group (B) being the shortest while group (C) was the longest (P value less than 0.001). Technically; group (A) used only end to end arterial anastomosis as a standard technique, while group (B) used both end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses as required per each case. End to side anastomosis in group (B) yielded better immediate graft response in the form of change in color, texture, earlier and more profuse postoperative urine volumes (P value 0.025). Furthermore, anastomosis to common and external iliac arteries (group B) yielded earlier and higher urine volumes than the internal iliac artery (P values 0.024 and 0.031 respectively). Group (B) recorded significantly less postoperative perigraft hematomas and lymphoceles compared to the other 2 groups. Equal rates of urine leaks, ICU stay, creatinine levels, patient and grafts survival rates among groups (A) and (B), while postoperative recovery and ICU stay duration were more lengthy in the complicated group (C).

CONCLUSIONS

A vascular surgeon operating in a transplantation team would deal comfortably and efficiently with various vascular related challenges and complications, thus avoiding unnecessary time waste, complications and costs.

Utility of pre-transplant lower urinary tract investigation in pediatric renal transplant population after referral: A 16-year institutional experience

To evaluate the clinical utility of pre-renal transplant LUT investigations in pediatric populations after their referral for transplant evaluation based on the etiology of their ESRD. A 16 year retrospective review of patients undergoing RT performed at our institution was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: Group 1-non-urologic and Group 2-urologic etiology for ESRD. Baseline characteristics, pre-transplant LUT investigations, and urologic interventions were assessed. One-year clinical outcomes were compared between those with and without LUT investigations following referral for renal transplantation (RT). 227 patients and 97 patients were identified for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. 19% of Group 1 and 73% of Group 2 had VCUG, while 1% and 13%, respectively, had UDS ordered following referral for RT. In both groups, >50% of VCUG and UDS were ordered without specific clinical concerns. These had low likelihood of prompting interventions, both pre-transplant (Group 1-VCUG 0%, UDS 0%; Group 2-VCUG 0%, UDS 8%) or post-transplant (Group 1-0%, Group 2-5%). In both groups, LUT investigation following referral for RT did not lead to differences in 1 year outcomes assessed. In anticipation of pediatric RT, LUT investigations ordered without clinical indications did not provide information that altered management prior to transplantation.

Shoulder arthroplasty in solid organ transplant patients: a retrospective, match paired analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated total hip and knee arthroplasty in solid organ transplant (SOT) patients; however, there are limited studies evaluating shoulder arthroplasty in SOT patients. This study compares the complications and functional outcomes of SOT patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty with a matched control group.

METHODS

The institution's database was retrospectively reviewed for patients with a history of SOT undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty (with minimum 2-year follow-up) and compared with a control group matched for age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and surgical procedure. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion and outcome scores, perioperative surgical and medical complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were compared.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with previous SOT underwent 19 shoulder arthroplasties. Thirty-four underwent 35 shoulder arthroplasties in the control group. At last follow-up, the SOT group had a significantly worse UCLA score. The SOT group had a significantly worse improvement in UCLA, active elevation, and passive elevation scores in pre- to postoperative scores. There was no difference in length of stay, infection, or surgical complications. Ninety-day readmissions, medically related complications, and required blood transfusion were significantly higher in the SOT group. There was increased mortality in the SOT compared with the control group (death occurred on average 1577 days after arthroplasty).

CONCLUSION

Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with previous SOT appears safe and effective for degenerative shoulder disorders. Patients should be counseled preoperatively that their range of motion and function may not improve as much as their nontransplant cohorts. SOT patients may have increased incidence of postoperative blood transfusions and medically related complications.

Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with immunosuppression following solid organ transplantation

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to determine the risk and outcomes of primary shoulder arthroplasties in patients with immunosuppression who had undergone solid organ transplantation.

METHODS

Using a single institution's total joint registry, we reviewed 30 primary shoulder arthroplasties in 25 post-transplantation patients, including 12 total shoulder arthroplasties, 10 hemiarthroplasties, and 8 reverse shoulder arthroplasties, between 1985 and 2012. Therapy and patient variables were recorded, including immunosuppressive therapy protocols, the date of preceding solid organ transplantation, and specific medications taken in the perioperative period. We matched a cohort of control patients for age, sex, type of implant, and year of surgery at a ratio of 4:1. Two groups were compared regarding mortality risk, complications, and clinical outcomes (pain score, range of motion, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score).

RESULTS

No periprosthetic infections occurred in the post-transplantation group at a mean follow-up of 39 months. However, the post-transplantation group showed an increased risk of periprosthetic fractures compared with the control group (hazard ratio, 8.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-70.98; P = .03). Despite the increase in fractures, the overall number of complications did not differ between the groups. Furthermore, postoperative shoulder function and outcome scores were not significantly different between patients who had a prior transplant and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

Primary shoulder arthroplasty in patients with immunosuppression who underwent solid organ transplantation is a successful procedure to treat glenohumeral arthritis. In contrast, there may be an increased risk of periprosthetic fractures in patients with a history of a solid organ transplant.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty After Solid Organ Transplantation in the United States, 1998-2011

This review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2011) examined trends in solid organ transplant patients who received a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to determine whether length of stay (LOS), cost, and perioperative complications differed from non-transplant peers. Primary TKA patients (n=5,870,421) were categorized as: (1) those with a history of solid organ transplant (n=6104) and (2) those without (n=5,864,317). Propensity matching was used to estimate adjusted effects of solid organ transplant history on perioperative outcomes. The percentage of TKA patients with a transplant history grew during the study period from 0.069% to 0.103%. Adjusted outcomes showed patients with a transplant had a 0.44 day longer LOS, $962 higher cost of admission, and were 1.43 times more likely to suffer any complication (P=0.0002).

Urologic considerations and complications in kidney transplant recipients

Urologic considerations during the kidney transplantation process, starting with initial recipient evaluation and continuing through the post-transplant, long-term follow-up, are critical for minimizing urologic complications and improving graft survival. Appropriate, targeted, preoperative urologic evaluation of the recipient allows for an optimized urinary tract to accept the graft, whereas post-transplant urologic follow-up and monitoring decrease the risk of graft lost secondary to a urologic cause, particularly in patients with a urologic reason for their kidney failure and in those patients with concomitant urologic diagnoses. Urologic complications comprise the second most common adverse post-transplant event, occurring in 2.5% to 14% of patients and are associated with high morbidity, graft loss, and mortality. Early and late urologic complications, including hematuria, hematoma, lymphocele, urine leak, ureteral stricture, nephrolithiasis, and vesicoureteral reflux, and their causes and treatment options are explored. A multidisciplinary team approach to kidney transplantation, including transplant surgery, urology, and nephrology, optimizes outcomes and graft survival. Although the current role of the urologist in kidney transplantation varies greatly by institution, appropriate consultation, participation, and monitoring in select patients is essential.

The clinical usefulness of nuclear matrix protein-22 in patients with end-stage renal disease and microscopic hematuria

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and false-positive rate of the nuclear matrix protein-22 (NMP22) test in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and microscopic hematuria in order to avoid unnecessary follow-up tests for patients with false-positive NMP22 test results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with ESRD were screened for microscopic hematuria as part of the pre-transplant workup. Patients with documented microscopic hematuria underwent workup as recommended by the American Urological Association.

RESULTS

Between January 2006 and April 2012, 277 patients with ESRD were referred to the Department of Urology for pre-transplant evaluation. Fifty-seven (22.6%) patients were found to have microscopic hematuria and underwent further testing. Nineteen (33.3%) patients demonstrated a positive NMP22 test result and 38 (66.7%) had a negative NMP22 test result. The false-positive rate was 32.7%. The sensitivity and specificity of the NMP22 test in this patient population were 50% and 67%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the test was 52.6% and the negative predictive value 97.3%. Especially noteworthy, the two detected transitional cell cancers of the urinary bladder were both demonstrated during cystoscopy, independent of their NMP22 or urine cytology test result.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed a significantly increased NMP22 test false-positive rate, low sensitivity, and specificity in the setting of high prevalence of microscopic hematuria, proteinuria, and low glomerular filtration rate in patients with ESRD. Therefore, cystoscopy remains the gold standard for patients with ESRD and microscopic hematuria for pre-transplant evaluation.

Urological involvement in renal transplantation

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.

Joint Arthroplasties other than the Hip in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Transplantation Surgery has undergone a great development during the last thirty years and the survival of solid organ recipients has increased dramatically. Osteo-articular diseases such as osteoporosis, fractures, avascular bone necrosis and osteoarthritis are relatively common in these patients and joint arthroplasty may be required. The outcome of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head after renal transplantation has been studied and documented by many researchers. However, the results of joint arthroplasties other than the hip in solid organs recipients were only infrequently reported in the literature. A systematic review of the English literature was conducted in order to investigate the outcome of joint arthroplasties other than the hip in kidney, liver or heart transplant recipients. Nine pertinent articles including 51 knee arthroplasties, 8 shoulder arthroplasties and 1 ankle arthroplasty were found. These articles reported well to excellent results with a complication rate and spectrum comparable with those reported in nontransplant patients.

Total hip replacement in renal transplant patients

Avascular necrosis of the femoral head creates considerable morbidity in successful renal transplant recipients who are generally young and expect active lifestyles. Total hip replacement is considered the treatment of choice in these patients, but surgeons may be wary because of a supposed increase in the risk of infection and other complications. A review of the literature reveals that cemented hip arthroplasty provides good to excellent functional outcomes for renal transplant patients. Most authors have found that the risk of infection is not increased despite chronic immunosuppression, but the rates of general complications are and should be anticipated and treated. There is a high rate of early failure in these patients because of their young age and diffuse osteopenia as a result of secondary hyperparathyroidism related to the underlying renal disease and chronic steroid use. Recent studies have found that despite decreased bone stock in these patients, porous-coated prostheses are not contraindicated.

Kidney transplantation in abnormal bladder

Structural urologic abnormalities resulting in dysfunctional lower urinary tract leading to end stage renal disease may constitute 15% patients in the adult population and up to 20-30% in the pediatric population. A patient with an abnormal bladder, who is approaching end stage renal disease, needs careful evaluation of the lower urinary tract to plan the most satisfactory technical approach to the transplant procedure. Past experience of different authors can give an insight into the management and outcome of these patients. This review revisits the current literature available on transplantation in abnormal bladder and summarizes the clinical approach towards handling this group of difficult transplant patients. We add on our experience as we discuss the various issues. The outcome of renal transplant in abnormal bladder is not adversely affected when done in a reconstructed bladder. Correct preoperative evaluation, certain technical modification during transplant and postoperative care is mandatory to avoid complications. Knowledge of the abnormal bladder should allow successful transplantation with good outcome.

Cardiovascular complications of immunosuppressive agents in renal transplant recipients

Fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events are the most important cause of graft loss in patients with a functioning graft following transplantation. The available data indicate that transplant patients have a high prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and new onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation. The aetiology and pathogenesis of post-transplant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes are multifactorial. In addition, disease of the native kidney and recurrence of renal disease can contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease in transplant recipients. Most transplant patients are at risk of clinically important drug-drug interactions involving immunosuppressive agents. Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions should not be neglected when selecting an agent for treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in transplant recipients.

Kidney transplantation into patients with abnormal bladders

An abnormal urinary bladder is no longer a contra-indication to renal transplantation. A normal urinary bladder stores urine at low pressure, does not leak, and empties completely by natural voiding. In contrast, an abnormal urinary bladder stores urine at high pressure, leaks, or does not empty completely by natural voiding. A variety of procedures have been devised to change the abnormal bladder into a continent low-pressure reservoir. Knowledge of these bladder modifications and their management should allow successful transplantation in patients with abnormal bladders and provide outcomes that match or approach those achieved in patients with a normal bladder.