Dual kidney transplant techniques: A systematic review

The use of marginal kidneys in dual kidney transplantation to expand kidney graft utilization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to chronicle the history of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) and identify opportunities to improve utilization of marginal deceased donor (MDD) kidneys through DKT.

RECENT FINDINGS

The practice of DKT from adult MDDs dates back to the mid-1990s, at which time the primary indication was projected insufficient nephron mass from older donors. Multiple subsequent studies of short- and long-term success have been reported focusing on three major aspects: Identifying appropriate selection criteria/scoring systems based on pre- and postdonation factors; refining technical aspects; and analyzing longer-term outcomes. The number of adult DKTs performed in the United States has declined in the past decade and only about 60 are performed annually. For adult deceased donor kidneys meeting double allocation criteria, >60% are ultimately not transplanted. MDDs with limited renal functional capacity represent a large proportion of potential kidneys doomed to either discard or nonrecovery.

SUMMARY

DKT may reduce organ discard and optimize the use of kidneys from MDDs. New and innovative technologies targeting ex vivo organ assessment, repair, and regeneration may have a major impact on the decision whether or not to use recovered kidneys for single or DKT.

Ipsilateral dual kidney transplantation in an elderly patient with severe atherosclerosis: a case report

Dual Kidney Transplantation (DKT) has been developed to improve outcomes from transplantation based on extended criteria of donors (ECD) and demonstrated excellent short-term outcomes. We performed DKT at Samsung Medical Center in March 2021. The donor was a 74-year-old male with no history of known underlying diseases but died from traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The recipient was a 72-year-old male who had been undergoing nephrological observation for 4 years prior to the kidney transplant. The patient had been on hemodialysis since July 2017 and had been suffering from type 2 diabetes since 2003. On non-contrast computed tomography, diffuse calcific atherosclerosis was observed in the abdominal aorta and left iliac artery. As a result, ipsilateral DKT was performed. Because of this diffuse calcific atherosclerosis, we planned ipsilateral DKT on the right side. Postoperative healing was uneventful without complications. In conclusion, DKT is an option for improving survival in the ECD pool, and ipsilateral DKT can be helpful option for preventing organ discard in ECDs.

Dual kidney transplants from adult marginal donors: Review and perspective

The practice of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) from adult marginal deceased donors (MDDs) dates back to the mid-1990s with initial pioneering experiences reported by the Stanford and Maryland groups, at which time the primary indication was estimated insufficient nephron mass from older donors. Multiple subsequent studies of short and long-term success have been reported focusing on three major aspects of DKT: Identifying appropriate selection criteria and developing scoring systems based on pre- and post-donation factors; refining technical aspects; and analyzing mid-term outcomes. The number of adult DKTs performed in the United States has declined in the past decade and only about 60 are performed annually. For adult deceased donor kidneys meeting double allocation criteria, >60% are ultimately not transplanted. Deceased donors with limited renal functional capacity represent a large proportion of potential kidneys doomed to either discard or non-recovery. However, DKT may reduce organ discard and optimize the use of kidneys from MDDs. In an attempt to promote utilization of MDD kidneys, the United Network for Organ Sharing introduced new allocation guidelines pursuant to DKT in 2019. The purpose of this review is to chronicle the history of DKT and identify opportunities to improve utilization of MDD kidneys through DKT. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abdominal wall complications after kidney transplantation: A clinical review

Introduction

Abdominal wall complications are common after kidney transplantation, and although they have a minor impact on patient and graft survival, they increase the patient's morbidity and may have an impact on quality of life. Abdominal wall complications have an overall incidence of 7.7–21%.

Methods

This review will explore the natural history of abdominal wall complications in the kidney transplant setting, with a special focus on wound dehiscence and incisional herni, with a particular emphasis on risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatment.

Results

Many patient‐related risk factors have been suggested, including older age, obesity, and smoking, but kidney transplant recipients have an additional risk related to the use of immunosuppression. Wound dehiscence usually does not require surgical intervention. However, for deep dehiscence involving the fascial layer with concomitant infection, surgical treatment and/or negative pressure wound therapy may be required.

Conclusions

Incisional hernia (IH) may affect 1.1–18% of kidney transplant recipients. Most patients require surgical treatment, either open or laparoscopic. Mesh repair is considered the gold standard for the treatment of IH, since it is associated with a low rate of postoperative complications and an acceptable rate of recurrence. Biologic mesh could be an attractive alternative in patients with graft exposition or infection.

Expanded criteria donors in deceased donor kidney transplantation - An Asian perspective

There is an increasing gulf between demand and supply for kidneys in end-stage renal failure patients worldwide, especially Asia. Renal transplantation is often the treatment of choice for long-suffering patients who have to undergo dialysis on a regular basis. The utilization of expanded criteria donors (ECDs) to address the donor pool shortage has been proven to be a legitimate solution. Metzger first described the classification of standard criteria donor and ECD in 2002. Since then, the criterion has undergone various modifications, with the key aims of optimizing organ procurement rate while minimizing discard and rejection rates. We review the methods to improve selection, characterization of risks, and surgical techniques. Although the ECD kidneys have a higher risk of impaired donor and recipient outcome than the "standard criteria" transplants, it may be justified by the improved overall survival of these patients compared to those who remained on dialysis. It is, therefore, crucial that we perform meticulous selection, along with state of the art surgical techniques to maximize the use of this scarce resource. In this article, we review the pre-procurement and post-procurement processes implemented to preserve outcomes.

A Novel Technique of Dual Kidney Transplantation (DKT) From Adult Donors

OBJECTIVE

To discuss a novel technique of dual kidney transplantation that has not been described in literature.

METHODS

Dual Kidney Transplantation (DKT) is done for kidneys from expanded criteria donors. The 3 described techniques in literature (bilateral placement, unilateral placement with separate or patch anastomosis) have some disadvantages. This newer technique describes the use of the donor iliac artery as an interposition Y graft for joining both kidneys of the dual kidney transplant. This method can overcome some of the disadvantages associated with the previously described techniques. The ureters were implanted in urinary bladder separately in one recipient and together in another recipient.

RESULTS

This technique was used in 2 cases. The cold ischemia time was 275 minutes and 765 minutes, respectively while the operative time was 187 minutes and 192 minutes, respectively in the 2 patients. The first patient has creatinine of 0.83 mg/dl on last follow up at 6 months whereas the other patient has creatinine of 1.12 mg/dl at 3 months follow up. Computed tomography angiography of both the patients revealed good contrast uptake in both kidneys with no stenosis, torsion or lymphocele.

CONCLUSION

The newer technique avoids scarring of both iliac fossa in DKT while reducing operative time and secondary warm ischemia time by doing a single arterial anastomosis in the recipient and allows easier placement of both kidneys in the right iliac fossa.

Renal transplants from older deceased donors: Is pre-implantation biopsy useful? A monocentric observational clinical study

AIM

To compare survival of kidney transplants from deceased extended criteria donors (ECD) according to: (1) donor graft histological score; and (2) allocation of high score grafts either to single (SKT) or dual (DKT) transplant.

METHODS

Renal biopsy was performed as part of either a newly adopted DKT protocol, or of surveillance protocol in the past. A total 185 ECD graft recipients were categorized according to pre-implantation graft biopsy into 3 groups: SKT with graft score 1 to 4 [SKT_(1-4), n = 102]; SKT with donor graft score 5 to 8 [SKT_{(> 4)}, n = 30]; DKT with donor graft score 5 to 7 (DKT, n = 53). Graft and patient survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by log-rank test. Mean number of functioning graft years by transplant reference, and mean number of dialysis-free life years by donor reference in recipients were also calculated at 1, 3 and 6 years from transplantation.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in graft and patient survival between SKT_(1-4) and SKT_{(> 4)}, and between SKT_{(> 4)} and DKT. Recipient renal function (plasma creatinine and creatinine clearance) at 1 years did not differ in SKT_(1-4) and SKT_{(> 4)} (plasma creatinine 1.71 ± 0.69 and 1.69 ± 0.63 mg/dL; creatinine clearance 49.6 + 18.5 and 52.6 + 18.8 mL/min, respectively); DKT showed statistically lower plasma creatinine (1.46 ± 0.57, P < 0.04) but not different creatinine clearance (55.4 + 20.4). Due to older donor age in the DKT group, comparisons were repeated in transplants from donors older than 70 years, and equal graft and patient survival in SKT and DKT were confirmed. Total mean number of functioning graft years by transplant reference at 1, 3 and 6 post-transplant years were equal between the groups, but mean number of dialysis-free life years by donor reference were significantly higher in SKT (mean difference compared to DKT at 6 years: 292 [IQR 260-318] years/100 donors in SKT_(1-4) and 292.5 [(IQR 247.8-331.6) in SKT_{(> 4)}].

CONCLUSION

In transplants from clinically suitable ECD donors, graft survival was similar irrespective of pre-implantation biopsy score and of allocation to SKT or DKT. These results suggest use of caution in the use of histology as the only decision criteria for ECD organ allocation.

Renal Transplants from Older Deceased Donors: Use of Preimplantation Biopsy and Differential Allocation to Dual or Single Kidney Transplant according to Histological Score Has No Advantages over Allocation to Single Kidney Transplant by Simple Clinical Indication

BACKGROUND

Grafts from elderly donors (ECD) are increasingly allocated to single (SKT) or dual (DKT) kidney transplantation according to biopsy score. Indications and benefits of either procedure lack universal agreement.

METHODS

A total of 302 ECD-transplants in period from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2015, were allocated to SKT (SKTpre) on clinical grounds alone (before Dec 2010, pre-DKT era, n = 170) or according to a clinical-histological protocol (after Dec 2010, DKT era, n = 132) to DKT (n = 48), SKT biopsy-based protocol ("high-risk", SKThr, n = 51), or SKT clinically based protocol ("low-risk", SKTlr, n = 33). Graft and patient survival were compared between the two periods and between different transplant categories.

RESULTS

Graft and overall survival in recipients from ECD in pre-DKT and DKT era did not differ (5-year graft survival 87.7% and 84.2%, resp.); equal survival in the 2 ECD periods was shown in both donor age ranges of 60-69 and >70-years, and in low-risk or high-risk ECD categories. Within the DKT protocol SKThr showed worst graft and overall survival in the 60-69 donor age range; DKT did not result in significantly better outcome than SKT from ECD in either era. One-year posttransplant creatinine clearance in recipients did not differ between any ECD transplant category. At 3 and 5 years after transplantation there were significantly higher total dialysis-free recipient life years from an equal donor number in the pre-DKT era than in the DKT protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a biopsy-based protocol to allocate grafts from aged donors to SKT or DKT did not result in better short term graft survival than a clinically based protocol with allocation only to SKT and reduced overall recipient dialysis-free life years in time.