[Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: French academic center experience]. / Transplantation rénale robot-assistée avec donneur vivant : expérience d'un centre universitaire français.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective was to report the intra-, post-operative and functional outcomes of living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), performed by a surgeon skilled in robotic surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the results of RAKT, based on the surgeon's experience. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent living-donor RAKT from July 2015 to March 2020 and compared the results of RAKT according to the surgeon's experience (group 1: 1-14th RAKT versus group 2: 15-29th RAKT). RESULTS: Twenty-nine living-donor RAKT were performed. The median age and BMI of the recipients were: 57.0 (44.0-66.0) years and 32.7 (23.5-39.6)kg/m2. The median overall operative time and median console time were: 140.0 (122.5-165.0) and 120.0 (107.5-137.5) minutes. The median rewarming time, arterial, venous and urinary anastomoses durations were: 35.0 (27.5-45.0), 15.0 (11.0-20.0), 12.0 (10.0-16.0), 20.0 (16.0-23.0) minutes. Two (6.9%) minor and 5 (17.2%) major (Clavien-Dindo≥III) postoperative complications occurred. At 2 years of follow-up, patient and transplant survival was 100% (n=29) and 93.1% (n=27). After the 14th RAKT, the rewarming time (P=0.01) and venous anastomosis duration (P=0.004) were statistically shorter. CONCLUSION: Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation, performed by a surgeon skilled robotic surgery, ensures good functional results in the medium term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Prevalence, incidence and risk factors for donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies in maintenance liver transplant patients.

Although large retrospective studies have identified the presence of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) to be a risk factor for rejection and impaired survival after liver transplantation, the long-term predicted pathogenic potential of individual DSAs after liver transplantation remains unclear. We investigated the incidence, prevalence and consequences of DSAs in maintenance liver transplant (LT) recipients. Two hundred sixty-seven LT recipients, who had undergone transplantation at least 6 months previously and had been screened for DSAs at least twice using single-antigen bead technology, were included and tested annually for the presence of DSAs. At a median of 51 months (min-max: 6-220) after an LT, 13% of patients had DSAs. At a median of 36.5 months (min-max: 2-45) after the first screening, 9% of patients have developed de novo DSAs. The sole predictive factor for the emergence of de novo DSAs was retransplantation (OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.28-11.05, p = 0.025). Five out of 21 patients with de novo DSAs (23.8%) developed an antibody-mediated rejection. Fibrosis score was higher among patients with DSAs. In conclusion, monitoring for the development of DSAs in maintenance LT patients is useful in case of graft dysfunction and to identify patients with a high risk of developing liver fibrosis.