Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative and functional results in a tertiary care center in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors is the current procedure of choice. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is the variation of this technique currently used in our institution. Though the advantages and disadvantages have been described for this procedure, the graft function compared with open surgery has been shown to be equal. We compared the outcomes of patients undergoing the former standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus the current HALDN technique. METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative, and analytic study we reviewed our institutional database of renal transplantation procedures from January 2005 to April 2011 for perioperative variables and 1-year follow-up data. Donor renal function was evaluated with serum creatinine concentrations and estimated glomerular filtration rates with the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology formula. Complications were reported with the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: The 190 consecutive donors included 99 ODN and 91 HALDN, who did not show baseline differences. ODN had a shorter mean operative time (217 ± 57.5 vs 270 ± 60.1 minutes) and shorter warm ischemia time (2.12 ± 1.4 vs 4.62 ± 2.7 minutes). HALDN had less operative blood loss (274.4 ± 198.1 vs 202.99 ± 157.1 mL) and shorter in-hospital stay (5.58 ± 2.2 vs 4.23 ± 1.8 days). There were no significant differences in 30-day surgical complications or transfusion requirements. No graft loss was reported. No difference in renal function was observed between the groups at days 1-2 or months 1, 6, or 12 after nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery has replaced conventional open surgery for living renal donors. HALDN is a safe and successful procedure compared with ODN. It is now the procedure of choice in our institution.

Time of occurrence of kidney acute antibody-mediated allograft rejection/acute cellular rejection and cell senescence: implications for function outcome.

BACKGROUND: Late versus early acute antibody-mediated rejection (AAMR) or acute cellular rejection (ACR) episodes are associated with poorer kidney function and graft survival. We explored whether cell senescence upon detection of AAMR ± ACR contributes to these results. METHODS: We reviewed the renal transplant database of 2 Institutions. Biopsies performed for acute graft dysfunction from January 2000 to March 2007 were analyzed for morphological criteria of AAMR with or without ACR (n = 17 from 17 patients). Immunoperoxidase staining for p16(INK4B) was performed on the remaining paraffin-embedded tissue in 9 of 17 cases. The average number of positive cells/high power field (HPF) was calculated in every case. Cases with rejection were grouped according to the time of presentation: early (<3 months n = 8) versus late (>3 months; n = 9). Graft function was obtained using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (mDRD) glomerular filtration rate estimate (eGFR) before, during rejection, and at the last visit, to calculate ΔeGFR. RESULTS: Nuclear expression of p16(INK4B) was 12.2 ± 11.3 cells/HPF in 4 of 8 biopsies performed at a median of 23 (range = 4-80) days (early AAMR ± ACR), and 59.8 ± 51.3 cells/HPF in 5 of 9 biopsies performed at a median of 1171 (range = 279-3210) days (late AAMR ± ACR). eGFR before rejection was 48.5 ± 7.6 mL/min, and 43.7 ± 4.3 mL/min for early and late rejection episodes, respectively (P = not significant [NS]). ΔeGFR of 12.5 ± 25.9 mL/min (early rejection), and -13.7 ± -12.3 mL/min (late rejection), versus last follow-up visit (P = .02) occurred at a median of 143.9 ± 94.1 and 69.6 ± 35.1 weeks after the rejection episodes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the number of biopsies analyzed for p16(INK4a) was small, it was evident that the number of cells expressing this marker of senescence was higher among biopsy specimens obtained with late rejection episodes. This finding suggests the presence of injuries prior to the rejection episode. The significantly lower eGFR at last follow-up in the late rejection group may translate to a reduced capacity of the repair process to sustain nephron function.