Young urologists and kidney transplantation training: A survey designed by the French Transplantation Committee of the French Association of Urology (CTAFU) and the French Association of Urologists in training (AFUF).

OBJECTIVE: In France, kidney transplantations (KT) are mainly performed by urologist. Young urologists and residents are involved in this activity mostly performed in emergency. How do they feel about KT training? Is KT an attractive part of the urologist activity? METHODS: This survey has been designed in the form of a questionnaire by the French Committee of Kidney Transplantation (CTAFU) and the French Association of Urologists in training (AFUF). It has been sent by e-mail to all the AFUF members. Interest in KT and performance of the training were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 126 members filed the form. Among the residents, 51.5% feel secure to perform KT at the end of their residency. KT is considered as an interesting surgery for 92.1% of the participants: 76.5% are willing to get involved in KT during their residency/fellowship. Among the participants, 44% are willing to continue a long-term involvement. Among the residents, 65.9% consider their practical training insufficient: 56.8% have been supervised for a KT performance during their residency and 86% declare a lack of practical training and had a patient-based learning. Among the residents, 92.1% declare an insufficient theorical training. Among the residents, 33.3% say the schedules of transplantation limit their interest in KT. Among the participants, 34.4% receive a transplant bonus in addition to the usual on-call salary. CONCLUSION: Young urologists wish to continue their involvement in KT activity, but improved theoretical and practical training are essential. In addition, the conditions under which this activity is performed and remunerated are a matter of concern.

Impact of newly diagnosed prostate cancer at time of evaluation for renal transplantation.

Systematic screening for prostate cancer is widely recommended in candidates for renal transplant at the time of listing. There are concerns that overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer may result in reducing access to transplant without demonstrated oncological benefits. The objective of the study was to assess the outcome of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in candidates for transplant at the time of listing, and its impact on transplant access and transplant outcomes according to treatment options. This retrospective study was conducted over 10 years in 12 French transplant centers. Patients included were candidates for renal transplant at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis. Demographical and clinical data regarding renal disease, prostate cancer, and transplant surgery were collected. The primary outcome of the study was the interval between prostate cancer diagnosis and active listing according to treatment options. Overall median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to active listing was 25.0 months [16.4-40.2], with statistically significant differences in median time between the radiotherapy and the active surveillance groups (p = .03). Prostate cancer treatment modalities had limited impact on access and outcome of renal transplantation. Active surveillance in low-risk patients does not seem to compromise access to renal transplantation, nor does it impact oncological outcomes.

Management and Outcome After Early Renal Transplant Vein Thrombosis: A French Multicentre Observational Study of Real-Life Practice Over 24 Years.

Early (<14 days) renal transplant vein thrombosis posttransplant (eRVTPT) is a rare but threatening complication. We aimed to assess eRVTPT management and the rate of functional renal transplantation. Of 11,172 adult patients who had undergone transplantation between 01/1997 and 12/2020 at 6 French centres, we identified 176 patients with eRVTPT (1.6%): 16 intraoperative (Group 1, G1) and 160 postoperative (Group 2, G2). All but one patient received surgical management. Patients in group G2 had at least one imaging test for diagnostic confirmation (N = 157, 98%). During the operative management of the G2 group, transplantectomy for graft necrosis was performed immediately in 59.1% of cases. In both groups, either of two techniques was preferred, namely, thrombectomy by renal venotomy or thrombectomy + venous anastomosis repair, with no difference in the functional graft rate (FGR) at hospital discharge (p = NS). The FGR was 62.5% in G1 and 8.1% in G2 (p < 0.001). Numerous complications occurred during the initial hospitalization: 38 patients had a postoperative infection (21.6%), 5 experienced haemorrhagic shock (2.8%), 29 exhibited a haematoma (16.5%), and 97 (55.1%) received a blood transfusion. Five patients died (2.8%). Our study confirms the very poor prognosis of early renal graft venous thrombosis.

Who Is at Risk of Death after Renal Trauma? An Analysis of Thirty-Day Mortality after 1,799 Cases of Renal Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to report the 30-day mortality (30DM) after renal trauma and identify the risk factors associated with death. METHODS: The TRAUMAFUF project was a retrospective multi-institutional study including all patients with renal trauma admitted to 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015. The included population focused on patients of all age groups who underwent renal trauma during the study period. The primary outcome was death within 30 days following trauma. The multivariate logistic regression model with a stepwise backward elimination was used to identify predictive factors of 30DM. RESULTS: Data on 1,799 renal trauma were recorded over the 10-year period. There were 59 deaths within 30 days of renal trauma, conferring a 30DM rate of 3.27%. Renal trauma was directly involved in 5 deaths (8.5% of all deaths, 0.3% of all renal trauma). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that age >40 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-3.99; p = 0.01), hemodynamic instability (OR 4.67; 95% CI: 2.49-9; p < 0.001), anemia (OR 3.89; 95% CI: 1.94-8.37; p < 0.001), bilateral renal trauma (OR 6.77; 95% CI: 2.83-15.61; p < 0.001), arterial contrast extravasation (OR 2.09; 95% CI: 1.09-3.96; p = 0.02), and concomitant visceral and bone injuries (OR 6.57; 95% CI: 2.41-23.14; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of 30DM. CONCLUSION: Our large multi-institutional study supports that the 30DM of 3.27% after renal trauma is due to the high degree of associated injuries and was rarely a consequence of renal trauma alone. Age >40 years, hemodynamic instability, anemia, bilateral renal trauma, arterial contrast extravasation, and concomitant visceral and bone lesions were predictors of death. These results can help clinicians to identify high-risk patients.

Impact of Hospital Volume on the Outcomes of Renal Trauma Management.

BACKGROUND: Some health care systems have set up referral trauma centers to centralize expertise to improve trauma management. There is scant and controversial evidence regarding the impact of provider's volume on the outcomes of trauma management. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of hospital volume on the outcomes of renal trauma management in a European health care system. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter study, including all patients admitted for renal trauma in 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015, was conducted. INTERVENTION: Nephrectomy, angioembolization, or nonoperative management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Four quartiles according to the caseload per year: low volume (eight or fewer per year), moderate volume (nine to 13 per year), high volume (14-25/yr), and very high volume (≥26/yr). The primary endpoint was failure of nonoperative management defined as any interventional radiology or surgical procedure needed within the first 30 d after admission. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1771 patients with renal trauma, 1704 were included. Nonoperative management was more prevalent in the very-high- and low-volume centers (p = 0.02). In a univariate analysis, very high hospital volume was associated with a lower risk of nonoperative management failure than low (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54; p = 0.05) and moderate (OR = 0.48; p = 0.02) hospital volume. There were fewer nephrectomies in the high- and very-high-volume groups (p = 0.003). In a multivariate analysis, very high volume remained associated with a lower risk of nonoperative management failure than low (OR = 0.48; p = 0.04) and moderate (OR = 0.42; p = 0.01) volume. Study limitations include all the shortcomings inherent to its retrospective multicenter design. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, management of renal trauma varied according to hospital volume. There were lower rates of nephrectomy and failure of nonoperative management in very-high-volume centers. These results raise the question of centralizing the management of renal trauma, which is currently not the case in our health care system. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, management of renal trauma varied according to hospital volume. Very-high-volume centers had lower rates of nephrectomy and failure of nonoperative management.

Factors Predictive of Selective Angioembolization Failure for Moderate- to High-grade Renal Trauma: A French Multi-institutional Study.

BACKGROUND: Angiography with selective angioembolization (SAE) is safe and effective in addressing bleeding in patients with renal trauma. However, there are no validated criteria to predict SAE efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors predictive of SAE failure after moderate- to high-grade renal trauma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRAUMAFUF was a retrospective multi-institutional study including all patients who underwent upfront SAE for renal trauma in 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was SAE efficacy, defined as the absence of repeat SAE, salvage nephrectomy, and/or death for each patient. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Out of 1770 consecutive patients with renal trauma, 170 (9.6%) with moderate- to high-grade renal trauma underwent SAE. Overall upfront SAE was successful in 131 patients (77%) and failed in 39 patients: six patients died after the embolization, ten underwent repeat SAE, 22 underwent open nephrectomy, and one underwent open surgical exploration. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, gross hematuria (odds ratio [OR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-8.49; p=0.015), hemodynamic instability (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.37-8.22; p=0.009), grade V trauma (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.06-7.72; p=0.036), and urinary extravasation (OR 3.49, 95% CI 1.42-8.83; p=0.007) were predictors of SAE failure. The success rate was 64.7% (22/34) for patients with grade V trauma and 59.6% (31/52) for those with hemodynamic instability. The study was limited by its retrospective design and the lack of a control group managed with either surgery or surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that gross hematuria, hemodynamic instability, grade V trauma, and urinary extravasation were significant predictors of SAE failure. However, success rates in these subgroups remained relatively high, suggesting that SAE might be appropriate for those patients as well. PATIENT SUMMARY: Selective angioembolization (SAE) is a useful alternative to nephrectomy to address bleeding in patients with renal trauma. Currently, there are no validated criteria to predict SAE efficacy. We found that gross hematuria, hemodynamic instability, grade V trauma, and urinary extravasation were significant predictors of SAE failure.

Impact of obesity in kidney transplantation: a prospective cohort study from French registries between 2008 and 2014.

BACKGROUND: The access of obese patients to kidney transplantation is limited despite several studies showing that obese transplant recipients had a better survival rate than those undergoing dialysis. The aim of this study was to compare patient and graft survival rates and post-renal transplant complications in obese patients and non-obese patients and to assess the effect of pre-transplant weight loss in obese patients on transplant outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a prospective cohort study using two French registries, the Renal Epidemiology and Information Network and CRISTAL, on 7270 kidney transplant patients between 2008 and 2014 in France. We compared obese patients with non-obese patients and obese patients who lost more than 10% of weight before the transplant (obese WL and obese nWL). RESULTS: The mean BMI in our obese patients was 32 kg/m2. Graft survival was lower in obese patients than in non-obese patients {hazard ratio (HR) = 1.40, [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.09; 1.78], P = 0.007}, whereas patient survival was similar [HR = 0.94, (95% CI 0.73; 1.23), P = 0.66]. Graft survival was significantly lower in obese WL than in obese nWL [HR = 2.17, (1.02; 4.63), P = 0.045], whereas patient survival was similar in the two groups [HR = 0.79, (0.35; 1.77), P = 0.56]. CONCLUSION: Grade 1 obesity does not seem to be a risk factor for excess mortality after kidney transplantation and should not be an obstacle to having access to a graft. Weight loss before a kidney transplant in these patients should not be essential for registration on waiting list.

Observation vs. early drainage for grade IV blunt renal trauma: a multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare observation and early drainage by ureteral stenting in patients with blunt renal trauma and urinary extravasation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective national multicenter study was performed including all patients admitted for renal trauma at 17 hospitals between 2005 and 2015. Patients presenting with a urinary extravasation on initial imaging were considered for inclusion. Patients were divided in two groups according to the initial approach: observation vs. early drainage by ureteral stent (within 48 h after admission). The primary endpoint was the persistence of urinary extravasation on follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Out of 1799 patients with renal trauma, 238 were included in the analysis (57 in the early drainage and 181 in the observation group). In the early drainage group, 29 patients had persistent urinary extravasation vs. 77 in the observation group (50.9% vs. 42.5%; p value = 0.27). The rates of secondary upper urinary tract drainage did not differ significantly between the early drainage group (26.4%) and the observation group (16%) (p = 0.14). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of secondary nephrectomy (0% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.34), and death from trauma (0% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.99). In multivariate analysis, early drainage remained not statistically associated with persistence of urinary extravasation on follow-up imaging (OR = 1.35; p = 0.36) CONCLUSION: In this multicenter cohort, observation was not different from early drainage in terms of persistent urinary extravasation after grade IV blunt renal trauma. Further randomized controlled prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Early discharge in selected patients with low-grade renal trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess whether early discharge could be non-inferior to inpatient management in selected patients with low-grade renal trauma (AAST grades 1-3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective national multicenter study was conducted including all patients who presented with renal trauma at 17 hospitals between 2005 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were iatrogenic and AAST grades 4 and 5 trauma, non-conservative initial management, Hb < 10 g/dl or transfusion within the first 24 h, and patients with concomitant injuries. Patients were divided into two groups according to the length of hospital stay: ≤ 48 h (early discharge), and > 48 h (inpatient). The primary outcome was "Intervention" defined as any interventional procedure needed within the first 30 days. A Stabilized Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (SIPTW) propensity score based binary response model was used to estimate risk difference. RESULTS: Out of 1764 patients with renal trauma, 311 were included in the analysis (44 in the early discharge and 267 in the inpatient group). In the early discharge group, only one patient required an intervention within the first 30 days vs. 10 in the inpatient group (3.7% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.99). Adjusted analysis using SIPTW propensity score showed a risk difference of - 2.8% [- 9.3% to + 3.7%] of "interventions" between the two groups meeting the non-inferiority criteria. CONCLUSION: In a highly selected cohort, early discharge management of low-grade renal trauma was not associated with an increased risk of early "intervention" compared to inpatient management. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.