成人双肾移植与单肾移植的中期结果:一种手术技术的演变。

IF 0.9 Q3 SURGERY Journal of Transplantation Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-07-10 DOI:10.1155/2016/2586761
Ana K Islam, Richard J Knight, Wesley A Mayer, Adam B Hollander, Samir Patel, Larry D Teeter, Edward A Graviss, Ashish Saharia, Hemangshu Podder, Emad H Asham, A Osama Gaber
{"title":"成人双肾移植与单肾移植的中期结果:一种手术技术的演变。","authors":"Ana K Islam,&nbsp;Richard J Knight,&nbsp;Wesley A Mayer,&nbsp;Adam B Hollander,&nbsp;Samir Patel,&nbsp;Larry D Teeter,&nbsp;Edward A Graviss,&nbsp;Ashish Saharia,&nbsp;Hemangshu Podder,&nbsp;Emad H Asham,&nbsp;A Osama Gaber","doi":"10.1155/2016/2586761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. Acceptance of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) has proven difficult, due to surgical complexity and concerns regarding long-term outcomes. We herein present a standard technique for ipsilateral DKT and compare outcomes to single-kidney transplant (SKT) recipients. Methods. A retrospective single-center comparison of DKT and SKT performed between February 2007 and July 2013. Results. Of 516 deceased donor kidney transplants, 29 were DKT and 487 were SKT. Mean follow-up was 43 ± 67 months. DKT recipients were older and more likely than SKT recipients to receive an extended criteria graft (p < 0.001). For DKT versus SKT, the rates of delayed graft function (10.3 versus 9.2%) and acute rejection (20.7 versus 22.4%) were equivalent (p = ns). A higher than expected urologic complication rate in the DKT cohort (14 versus 2%, p < 0.01) was reduced through modification of the ureteral anastomosis. Graft survival was equivalent between DKT and SKT groups (p = ns) with actuarial 3-year DKT patient and graft survivals of 100% and 93%. At 3 years, the groups had similar renal function (p = ns). Conclusions. By utilizing extended criteria donor organs as DKT, the donor pool was enlarged while providing excellent patient and graft survival. The DKT urologic complication rate was reduced by modification of the ureteral anastomosis. </p>","PeriodicalId":45795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Transplantation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/2586761","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Dual Adult versus Single-Kidney Transplantation: Evolution of a Surgical Technique.\",\"authors\":\"Ana K Islam,&nbsp;Richard J Knight,&nbsp;Wesley A Mayer,&nbsp;Adam B Hollander,&nbsp;Samir Patel,&nbsp;Larry D Teeter,&nbsp;Edward A Graviss,&nbsp;Ashish Saharia,&nbsp;Hemangshu Podder,&nbsp;Emad H Asham,&nbsp;A Osama Gaber\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2016/2586761\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background. Acceptance of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) has proven difficult, due to surgical complexity and concerns regarding long-term outcomes. We herein present a standard technique for ipsilateral DKT and compare outcomes to single-kidney transplant (SKT) recipients. Methods. A retrospective single-center comparison of DKT and SKT performed between February 2007 and July 2013. Results. Of 516 deceased donor kidney transplants, 29 were DKT and 487 were SKT. Mean follow-up was 43 ± 67 months. DKT recipients were older and more likely than SKT recipients to receive an extended criteria graft (p < 0.001). For DKT versus SKT, the rates of delayed graft function (10.3 versus 9.2%) and acute rejection (20.7 versus 22.4%) were equivalent (p = ns). A higher than expected urologic complication rate in the DKT cohort (14 versus 2%, p < 0.01) was reduced through modification of the ureteral anastomosis. Graft survival was equivalent between DKT and SKT groups (p = ns) with actuarial 3-year DKT patient and graft survivals of 100% and 93%. At 3 years, the groups had similar renal function (p = ns). Conclusions. By utilizing extended criteria donor organs as DKT, the donor pool was enlarged while providing excellent patient and graft survival. The DKT urologic complication rate was reduced by modification of the ureteral anastomosis. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Transplantation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/2586761\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2586761\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/7/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2586761","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景。由于手术复杂性和对长期预后的担忧,双肾移植(DKT)的接受被证明是困难的。我们在此提出了同侧DKT的标准技术,并比较了单肾移植(SKT)接受者的结果。方法。2007年2月至2013年7月对DKT和SKT进行回顾性单中心比较。结果。在516例死亡供体肾脏移植中,29例为DKT, 487例为SKT。平均随访43±67个月。DKT受者年龄较大,比SKT受者更有可能接受扩展标准移植(p < 0.001)。对于DKT和SKT,延迟移植功能的比率(10.3%对9.2%)和急性排斥反应(20.7%对22.4%)是相等的(p = ns)。通过改良输尿管吻合术,降低了DKT队列中高于预期的泌尿系统并发症发生率(14%对2%,p < 0.01)。DKT组和SKT组的移植物存活率相等(p = ns),精算3年DKT患者和移植物存活率分别为100%和93%。3年时,两组肾功能相近(p = ns)。结论。通过使用扩展标准供体器官作为DKT,扩大了供体池,同时提供了良好的患者和移植物生存。改良输尿管吻合术可降低DKT泌尿系统并发症发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Dual Adult versus Single-Kidney Transplantation: Evolution of a Surgical Technique.

Background. Acceptance of dual kidney transplantation (DKT) has proven difficult, due to surgical complexity and concerns regarding long-term outcomes. We herein present a standard technique for ipsilateral DKT and compare outcomes to single-kidney transplant (SKT) recipients. Methods. A retrospective single-center comparison of DKT and SKT performed between February 2007 and July 2013. Results. Of 516 deceased donor kidney transplants, 29 were DKT and 487 were SKT. Mean follow-up was 43 ± 67 months. DKT recipients were older and more likely than SKT recipients to receive an extended criteria graft (p < 0.001). For DKT versus SKT, the rates of delayed graft function (10.3 versus 9.2%) and acute rejection (20.7 versus 22.4%) were equivalent (p = ns). A higher than expected urologic complication rate in the DKT cohort (14 versus 2%, p < 0.01) was reduced through modification of the ureteral anastomosis. Graft survival was equivalent between DKT and SKT groups (p = ns) with actuarial 3-year DKT patient and graft survivals of 100% and 93%. At 3 years, the groups had similar renal function (p = ns). Conclusions. By utilizing extended criteria donor organs as DKT, the donor pool was enlarged while providing excellent patient and graft survival. The DKT urologic complication rate was reduced by modification of the ureteral anastomosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
4.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pneumatosis Intestinalis and Pneumoperitoneum After Lung Transplantation: Single-Center Experience and Systematic Review. Hepatic Duct Division During Robotic Living Donor Hepatectomy: A Comparison Between the Novel Triple C (Clip-Clamp-Cut) and the Cut-Suture Techniques. Psychosocial Trauma History Negatively Impacts Liver Transplant Access in Women with Chronic Liver Disease. Long-Term Outcomes of Recipients of Liver Transplants from Living Donors Treated with a Very Low-Calorie Diet. Addressing Kidney Transplant Shortage: The Potential of Kidney Paired Exchanges in Jordan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1