Prospective assessment of the impact of intraoperative diuretics in kidney transplant recipient surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoperative diuretics, such as furosemide or mannitol, during kidney transplantation has been suggested to reduce the rate of delayed graft function (DGF). The evidence base for this is sparse, however, and there is substantial variation in practice. We sought to evaluate whether the use of intraoperative diuretics during kidney transplantation translated into a reduction in DGF. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study evaluating the use of furosemide or mannitol given intraoperatively before kidney reperfusion compared with control (no diuretic). Adult patients receiving a kidney transplant for end-stage renal disease were allocated to receive furosemide, mannitol, or no diuretic. The primary outcome was DGF; secondary outcomes were graft function at 30 days and perioperative changes in potassium levels. Descriptive and comparative statistics were used where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 162 patients who received a kidney transplant from a deceased donor (either donation after neurologic determination of death or donation after circulatory death) were included over a 2-year period, with no significant between-group differences. There was no significant difference in DGF rates between the furosemide, mannitol, and control groups. When the furosemide and mannitol groups were pooled (any diuretic use) and compared with the control group, however, there was a significant improvement in the odds that patients would be free of DGF (odds ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.06-4.16, 26% v. 44%, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences noted in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the use of an intraoperative diuretic (furosemide or mannitol) may result in a reduction in DGF in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. Further study in the form of a randomized controlled trial is warranted.

A Prospective Study of the Effect of Gastroduodenal Artery Reconstruction on Duodenal Oxygenation and Enzyme Content After Pancreas Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Whole pancreas transplantation provides durable glycemic control and can improve survival rate; however, it can carry an increased risk of surgical complications. One devastating complication is a duodenal leak at the site of enteroenteric anastomosis. The gastroduodenal artery (GDA) supplies blood to the donor duodenum and pancreas but is commonly ligated during procurement. Since we have not had expressive changes in pancreatic back table surgical techniques in the recent decades, we hypothesized whether back table GDA reconstruction, improving perfusion of the donor duodenum and head of the pancreas, could lead to fewer surgical complications in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, we evaluated demographic information, postoperative complications, intraoperative donor duodenum, recipient bowel O2 tissue saturation, and patient morbidity through the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®). RESULTS: A total of 26 patients were included: 13 underwent GDA reconstruction (GDA-R), and 13 had GDA ligation (GDA-L). There were no pancreatic leaks in the GR group compared to 38% (5/13) in the GDA-L group (p = 0.03913). Intraoperative tissue oxygen saturation was higher in the GDA-R group than in the GDA-L (95.18 vs.76.88%, p < 0,001). We observed an increase in transfusion rate in GDA-R (p < 0.05), which did not result in a higher rate of exploration (p = 0.38). CCI® patient morbidity was also significantly lower in the GDA-R group (s < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified improved intraoperative duodenal tissue oxygen saturation in the GDA-R group with an associated reduction in pancreatic leaks and CCI® morbidity risk. A larger prospective multicenter study comparing the two methods is warranted.

Canadian survey on the rates of use of intraoperative diuretics and justification for their use during renal allograft reperfusion.

BACKGROUND: Mannitol and furosemide have been used as diuretics intraoperatively to facilitate early renal allograft function and reduce delayed graft function. As the evidence of any efficacy of these agents is limited, we sought to characterize the use of diuretics among transplant surgeons. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to all Canadian transplant programs where kidney transplants are routinely performed. Questions were related to the use and indications for mannitol and furosemide. Responses were collected and analyzed as counts and percentages of respondents. We used χ2 analysis to assess the relationship between demographic factors and survey responses. RESULTS: Thirty-five surgeons completed the survey (response rate 50%). Seventy per cent of respondents reported performing 26 or more transplants per year, 88% had formal transplant fellowship training and 67% indicated that they currently train fellows. Only 24% and 12% reported believing that delayed graft function is reduced by mannitol and furosemide use, respectively. However, 73% routinely gave mannitol to patients and 53% routinely gave furosemide. The most common justification given for mannitol use was to induce diuresis (54%); 37% of respondents reported using mannitol because of training dogma. Likewise, 57% used furosemide for diuresis, with 23% reporting that their use of this agent was based on dogma. No relationship emerged between fellowship training, case volume or training program status and the use of any agent. Interestingly, 71% of respondents indicated that a randomized controlled trial evaluating the utility of intraoperative diuretics is needed and that they were interested in participating in such a trial. CONCLUSION: Use of intraoperative diuretics and the rationale for their use vary among surgeons. A substantial proportion of surgeons use these medications on the basis of dogma alone. A randomized controlled trial is needed to clarify the role of intraoperative diuretics in kidney transplant surgery.

CONTEXTE: On a utilisé le mannitol et le furosémide comme diurétiques peropératoires pour stimuler le fonctionnement précoce de l'allogreffe rénale et réduire le retard de fonctionnement du greffon. Comme les données probantes quant à l'efficacité de ces agents sont limitées, nous avons voulu caractériser l'utilisation des diurétiques chez les chirurgiens qui effectuent ces transplantations. MÉTHODES: Un sondage anonyme en ligne a été envoyé à tous les programmes de greffe canadiens où des greffes rénales sont couramment effectuées. Les questions avaient trait à l'utilisation et aux indications du mannitol et du furosémide. Les réponses ont été recueillies et analysées sous forme de nombres et de pourcentages des répondants. Le test du χ2 a été utilisé pour évaluer le lien entre les facteurs démographiques et les réponses au sondage. RÉSULTATS: Trente-cinq chirurgiens ont répondu au sondage (taux de réponse 50 %). Soixante-dix pour cent des répondants ont indiqué effectuer annuellement 26 greffes ou plus, 88 % avaient suivi une spécialisation formelle pour l'exécution des greffes et 67 % ont dit être en cours de spécialisation. Seulement 24 % et 12 % respectivement ont dit croire que le mannitol et le furosémide permettent de réduire le retard de fonctionnement du greffon. Toutefois, 73 % et 53 % respectivement administraient de routine du mannitol et du furosémide aux patients. La justification la plus fréquente de l'utilisation du mannitol était d'induire la diurèse (54 %); 37 % des répondants ont dit utiliser le mannitol parce que c'est ce qu'on leur a enseigné durant leur formation. De même, 57 % utilisaient le furosémide pour la diurèse, dont 23 % disaient que c'est ce qu'on leur avait enseigné durant leur formation. Aucun lien n'est ressorti entre la spécialisation, le volume de cas ou le statut à l'égard du programme de formation et l'utilisation d'un agent quelconque. Fait à noter, 71 % des répondants ont indiqué qu'un essai randomisé et contrôlé sur l'utilité des diurétiques peropératoires serait nécessaire et qu'ils y participeraient volontiers. CONCLUSION: L'utilisation de diurétiques peropératoires et la justification de leur utilisation varient d'un chirurgien à l'autre. En majeure partie, les chirurgiens utilisent ces médicaments sur la base des notions théoriques seulement. Un essai randomisé et contrôlé s'impose pour clarifier le rôle des diurétiques peropératoires dans la greffe rénale.

Comparative Study Assessing Postoperative Renal Loss Using Two Different Partial Nephrectomy Techniques: Off-Clamp versus Standard On-Clamp Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a case-matched study comparing postoperative renal function using two surgical techniques: an off-clamp partial nephrectomy (PN) with the aid of the Altrus® device and a standard on-clamp laparoscopic PN. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 36 patients underwent PN. Eighteen had the off-clamp technique and 18 had the standard laparoscopic on-clamp PN. Demographic, clinical, radiological, and perioperative data were collected for analysis. An emphasis on renal function was made by analyzing both the perioperative and follow-up with estimated glomerular filtration rate and MAG3. RESULTS: The median values did not signifcantly differ for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and hospital stay in the off-clamp versus on-clamp PN [62.5 (interquartile range, IQR 11) vs. 60 (IQR 16) years, 4 (IQR 2) vs. 5 (IQR 2) and 5 (IQR 1) vs. 4 (IQR 2) days], respectively. The median diameter of the tumors was 33 (IQR 23) versus 41 (IQR 28) mm (p = 0.63), with median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of 7 (IQR 2) versus 7 (IQR 2) (p = 0.33). There was greater blood loss in the Altrus® (375 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.037). The clamp time in the on-clamp group was 30 (IQR 6) minutes (range 22-68 minutes) compared to 0 minutes in the off-clamp group. There was no difference in hemoglobin or creatinine levels between the groups. However, the on-clamp group had a significant loss in ipsilateral renal function on the MAG3 scan (49 vs. 42%, p = 0.0001), whereas the off-clamp group had no difference (48 vs. 46%, p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The off-clamp method for PN is a feasible and safe option with better preservation of ipsilateral renal function when compared with on-clamp PN in the treatment of small renal masses.

Revision urethroplasty success is comparable to primary urethroplasty: a comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and complications of revision urethroplasty compared with urethroplasty-naïve controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 534 urethroplasties performed by a single surgeon from August 2003 to March 2011. Patient age, stricture length, location, etiology, comorbidities, and type of surgery were recorded. Statistical comparison between the revision cohort and urethroplasty-naïve group were made using Fisher, χ(2), and unpaired t tests, with significance at P < .05 (2-tailed). The primary outcome was urethral patency assessed by cystoscopy. Secondary (subjective) outcome measures included erectile dysfunction, pain, urinary tract infection, or chordee at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients met inclusion criteria with completed cystoscopic follow-up. Previous urethroplasty had failed in 49 patients (10.3%). Patients undergoing revision urethroplasty were more likely to have stricture in the penile urethra (22.4%; P = .001), to have strictures exceeding 4 cm in length (71.4% vs 54.3%; P = .023), and to require tissue transfer (83.6% vs 65.1%; P = .010). Urethral patency rates did not differ significantly between naïve and revision urethroplasty cohorts, with a mean follow-up of 49.9 months (94.6% vs 91.8%; P = .518). The revision group had a higher incidence of chordee (2.7% vs 14.3%; P = .001) and urinary tract infection (3.5% vs 10.2%; P = .04). The rates of erectile dysfunction, scrotal pain, lower urinary tract symptoms, and incontinence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Revision urethroplasty is an effective treatment option for recurrent stricture after urethroplasty and is comparable to results in urethroplasty-naïve patients. Patients undergoing revision urethroplasty are more likely to require tissue transfer and experience higher rates of chordee and urinary tract infection.

Stricture length and etiology as preoperative independent predictors of recurrence after urethroplasty: A multivariate analysis of 604 urethroplasties.

INTRODUCTION: We determine the preoperative identifiable risk factors during staging that predict stricture recurrence after urethroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all urethroplasties performed at a Canadian tertiary referral centre from 2003 to 2012. Failure was defined as a recurrent stricture <16 Fr on cystoscopic assessment. Multivariate analysis was calculated by Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: In total, 604 of 651 (93%) urethroplasties performed had adequate data with a mean follow-up of 52 months. Overall urethral patency was 90.7% with failures occurring between 2 weeks and 77 months postoperatively. The average time to recurrence was 11.7 months, with most patients with recurrence within 6 months (42/56; 75%). Multivariate regression identified Lichen sclerosus, iatrogenic, and infectious etiologies to be independently associated with stricture recurrence with hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence interval) of 5.9 (2.1-16.5; p ≤ 0.001), 3.4 (1.2-10; p = 0.02), and 7.3 (2.3-23.7; p ≤ 0.001), respectively. Strictures ≥5cm recurred significantly more often (13.8% vs. 5.9%) with a HR 2.3 (1.2-4.5; p ≤ 0.01). Comorbidities, smoking, previous urethroplasty, stricture location and an age ≥50 were not associated with recurrence. CONCLUSION: Urethroplasty in general is an excellent treatment for urethral stricture with patency rates approaching 91%. While recurrences occur over 6 years after surgery, most (75%) recur within the first 6 months. Long segment strictures (≥5 cm), as well as Lichen sclerosus, infectious and iatrogenic etiologies, are associated with increased risk of recurrence. Limitations include the retrospective, single-centre nature of the study and the 7% loss to follow-up due to the centre being a regional referral one.

Open removal as a first-line treatment of magnetic intravesical foreign bodies.

Intravesical foreign bodies are an uncommon, but significant, cause of urologic consultation. We present 3 patients who all inserted magnetic beads per urethra into the urinary bladder, which subsequently became retained. Endoscopic attempts were unsuccessfully tried in the first 2 cases, necessitating open cystotomy to remove the beads. The third went straight to open removal. Given the failure of minimally invasive techniques, we believe that open removal should be the first-line treatment for these types of foreign bodies.