Midterm Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation from Expanded Criteria Donors After Circulatory Death: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Kidney transplant is the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease; however, due to the imbalance between demand and supply, several strategies have been implemented to increase the donor pool. To increase the number of donors, expanded criteria donors after circulatory death have been explored as an acceptable graft source. In this study, we compared graft survival, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 3 and 5 years, and the incidence of delayed graft function between standard and expanded criteria donors after brain death and between standard and expanded criteria donors after circulatory death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, at Reina Sofia University Hospital. Variables related to the donor, recipient, and transplant procedure were analyzed, and univariate and multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Our study included 308 deceased donor kidneys. The kidneys from standard criteria brain dead donors had higher estimated glomerular filtration rate than the other groups (P < .03).However, no significant differences in estimated glomerular filtration rate were observed among the suboptimal groups (expanded criteria and standard criteria donors after brain death and expanded criteria donors after circulatory death). The incidence of delayed graft function was significantly higher in expanded criteria donors after circulatory death than in the other groups (odds ratio = 6.9; 95% CI, 2.22-21.71; P < .001). Nevertheless, we found no significant differences in death-censored graft loss among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplants from expanded criteria donors and donors after cardiac death are comparable, even when both criteria are combined. The use of expanded criteria donor kidneys after cardiac death is therefore a suitable approach to expand the donor pool, despite the higher risk of delayed graft function, as there were no significant differences in death-censored graft loss.

[Design and validation of a satisfaction questionnaire in patients with urolithiasis treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).] / Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de salud en pacientes con urolitiasis tratados mediante litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOC).

OBJECTIVES: Studying the psychosocial sphere of patients who undergo any treatment allows to have more information about its repercussion and can help the choice of an appropriate and personalized treatment. Due to the absence of specific instruments at present, the objective is to design and validate a health questionnaire regarding the treatment received with ESWL. METHODS: It was carried out in 6 phases using a sampleof 50 patients treated with ESWL in 2015 in ourcenter, whom we interviewed by telephone. In phase1 the items were proposed based on bibliographic review,in phase 2 those that scored below 7 were eliminatedaccording to the evaluation from 0 to 10 on theitems made by specialists. In phase 3, values of 1 to 5were assigned to each item and those with correctedcorrelation more than 0.2 and not significant (p>0.05)discriminant power with U-Mann Whitney were eliminated.In phase 4 the reliability of the questionnaire waschecked with two indexes (Cronbach's alpha and twoGuttman's halves). In phase 5, the factor analysis withVarimax rotation was performed to calculate the constructvalidity and in stage 6, the scores were analyzedto establish reference values. RESULTS: 50 patients (32 men, 18 women). Medianage 59 years (27-79). In phase 1, 35 items were proposed,9 of which were eliminated in phase 2. The initialquestionnaire with 26 items was distributed, with 18being eliminated in phase 3. The final questionnaire wasformed with 8 items. In phase 4 the results of Cronbach'salpha and Guttman's two halves index were 0.44 and0.323 respectively. In phase 5 after factor analysis, wefound 4 factors with 2 items each (background, impactof the acute picture, post-treatment, quality of life) able toexplain 71.19% of the variance. The median scores ofthe scale, extreme values and quartiles studied in phase6 were respectively: P50: 17 (minimum-maximum 9-25),P25: 14 and P75: 20. CONCLUSIONS: The study carried out has provided anew instrument for assessing satisfaction after treatmentwith ESWL with adequate reliability and validity values.Future studies will be necessary to contrast its true clinicalusefulness.

OBJETIVO: Estudiar la esfera psicosocial de los pacientes que se someten a algún tratamiento permite tener más información sobre la repercusión del mismo y puede ayudar a la elección de un tratamiento adecuado y personalizado. Debido a la ausencia deinstrumentos específicos actualmente, el objetivo es diseñary validar un cuestionario de salud en pacientes tratados con LEOC.MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó en 6 fases utilizando una muestra de 50 pacientes tratados con LEOC en 2015 en nuestro centro, a los que entrevistamos por vía telefónica. En la fase 1 se propusieron ítems a partir de revisión bibliográfica. En la fase 2 se eliminaron losque puntuaban por debajo de 7 según la valoración de 0-10 sobre los ítems efectuada por especialistas en la materia. En la fase 3 se asignaron valores de 1 a 5 a cada ítem y se eliminaron aquellos cuya correlación corregida fuera mayor de 0,2 y cuya potencia discriminante con U-Mann Whitney no fuera significativa (p>0,05). En la fase 4 se comprobó la fiabilidad del cuestionario con dos índices (alfa de Cronbach y dos mitades de Guttman). En la fase 5 se realizó el análisis factorial con rotación Varimax para el cálculo de la validez de constructo. Finalmente, en la fase 6 se tipificaron de las puntuaciones para establecer valores de referencia. RESULTADOS: 50 pacientes (32 hombres, 18 mujeres). Mediana edad 59 años (27-79). Fase 1: 35 ítems propuestos. Fase 2: 9 ítems eliminados. Distribución de cuestionario con 26 ítems. Fase 3: 18 ítems eliminados.Cuestionario final constituido por 8 ítems. Fase 4: valores de fiabilidad del cuestionario (alfa de Cronbach 0,44 e índice por técnica de dos mitades de Guttman 0,323). Fase 5: análisis factorial hallando 4 factores con 2 ítems cada uno (antecedentes, repercusión delcuadro agudo, post-tratamiento, calidad de vida) capaces de explicar el 71,19% de la varianza. Fase 6: mediana puntuación  50:17(mínimo-máximo 9-25), P25:14 y P75:20. CONCLUSIONES: El trabajo realizado ha proporcionado un nuevo instrumento de evaluación de salud tras tratamiento con LEOC con valores de fiabilidad y validez adecuados. Serán necesarios futuros estudios para contrastar su verdadera utilidad clínica.

Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de salud en pacientes con urolitiasis tratados mediante litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOC) / No disponible

Objetivo: Estudiar la esfera psicosocial de los pacientes que se someten a algún tratamiento permite tener más información sobre la repercusión del mismo y puede ayudar a la elección de un tratamiento adecuado y personalizado. Debido a la ausencia de instrumentos específicos actualmente, el objetivo es diseñar y validar un cuestionario de salud en pacientes tratados con LEOC. Material y métodos: Se realizó en 6 fases utilizando una muestra de 50 pacientes tratados con LEOC en 2015 en nuestro centro, a los que entrevistamos por vía telefónica. En la fase 1 se propusieron ítems a partir de revisión bibliográfica. En la fase 2 se eliminaron los que puntuaban por debajo de 7 según la valoración de 0-10 sobre los ítems efectuada por especialistas en la materia. En la fase 3 se asignaron valores de 1 a 5 a cada ítem y se eliminaron aquellos cuya correlación corregida fuera mayor de 0,2 y cuya potencia discriminante con U-Mann Whitney no fuera significativa (p>0,05). En la fase 4 se comprobó la fiabilidad del cuestionario con dos índices (alfa de Cronbach y dos mitades de Guttman). En la fase 5 se realizó el análisis factorial con rotación Varimax para el cálculo de la validez de constructo. Finalmente, en la fase 6 se tipificaron de las puntuaciones para establecer valores de referencia. Resultados: 50 pacientes (32 hombres, 18 mujeres). Mediana edad 59 años (27-79). Fase 1: 35 ítems propuestos. Fase 2: 9 ítems eliminados. Distribución de cuestionario con 26 ítems. Fase 3: 18 ítems eliminados. Cuestionario final constituido por 8 ítems. Fase 4: valores de fiabilidad del cuestionario (alfa de Cronbach 0,44 e índice por técnica de dos mitades de Guttman 0,323). Fase 5: análisis factorial hallando 4 factores con 2 ítems cada uno (antecedentes, repercusión del cuadro agudo, post-tratamiento, calidad de vida) capaces de explicar el 71,19% de la varianza. Fase 6: mediana puntuación 50:17(mínimo-máximo 9-25), P25:14 y P75:20. Conclusiones: El trabajo realizado ha proporcionado un nuevo instrumento de evaluación de salud tras tratamiento con LEOC con valores de fiabilidad y validez adecuados. Serán necesarios futuros estudios para contrastar su verdadera utilidad clínica

Objectives: Studying the psychosocial sphere of patients who undergo any treatment allows to have more information about its repercussion and can help the choice of an appropriate and personalized treatment. Due to the absence of specific instruments at present, the objective is to design and validate a health questionnaire regarding the treatment received with ESWL. Methods: It was carried out in 6 phases using a sample of 50 patients treated with ESWL in 2015 in our center, whom we interviewed by telephone. In phase 1 the items were proposed based on bibliographic review, in phase 2 those that scored below 7 were eliminated according to the evaluation from 0 to 10 on the items made by specialists. In phase 3, values of 1 to 5 were assigned to each item and those with corrected correlation more than 0.2 and not significant (p>0.05) discriminant power with U-Mann Whitney were eliminated. In phase 4 the reliability of the questionnaire was checked with two indexes (Cronbach’s alpha and two Guttman's halves). In phase 5, the factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed to calculate the construct validity and in stage 6, the scores were analyzed to establish reference values. Results: 50 patients (32 men, 18 women). Median age 59 years (27-79). In phase 1, 35 items were proposed, 9 of which were eliminated in phase 2. The initial questionnaire with 26 items was distributed, with 18 being eliminated in phase 3. The final questionnaire was formed with 8 items. In phase 4 the results of Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman’s two halves index were 0.44 and 0.323 respectively. In phase 5 after factor analysis, we found 4 factors with 2 items each (background, impact of the acute picture, post-treatment, quality of life) able to explain 71.19% of the variance. The median scores of the scale, extreme values and quartiles studied in phase 6 were respectively: P50: 17 (minimum-maximum 9-25), P25: 14 and P75: 20. Conclusions: The study carried out has provided a new instrument for assessing satisfaction after treatment with ESWL with adequate reliability and validity values. Future studies will be necessary to contrast its true clinical usefulness

[Assessment and prevalence of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: Analysis of a historical series]. / EVALUACIÓN Y PREVALENCIA DE INCONTINENCIA URINARIA TRAS PROSTATECTOMÍA RADICAL: ANÁLISIS DE UNA SERIE HISTÓRICA.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer can be treated by radical prostatectomy and provoke urinary incontinence as secondary effect. Our aim is to calculate the prevalence of urinary incontinence, characteristics of leakage and influential factors, through a historical series. METHODS: We perform a descriptive, observational and retrospective study of 1310 patients who received treatment for PCa between 1989 and 2011. Prevalence was obtained after 12 months of recovery and using ICS definition. To complete ICIQ-SF and number of pads/day used we perform a cross-sectional study. The series is studied globally and divided in two groups according to oncologic characteristics. We perform a descriptive, comparative and predictive analysis. RESULTS: Prevalence of the series was 23.5%, 296 patients. 279 incontinent patients completed ICIQ-SF with a mean score of 11.1±4.03. 16.4% of the patients use 1 pad/day or none, 69% (11.4% of the total) use compress and 22% diapers. 8% of the total use more than 1 pad/day. Clinico-pathological factors divide series in two groups: 1989-1999 with a prevalence of 24.6% and 2000-2011 with 22.8%. Multivariate analysis shows influential factors: age (65 years) (OR:1.65, p=0.013) and prostate volume (50cc) (OR:1.49, p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary incontinence is a disease with some prevalence that varies depending on definition. The most common situation was to leak several times a day (42.2%), a small amount (59.1%), using compress (69%) most of incontinents with a mild (0-7: 88.2%) impact on quality of life. Predictive factors were age (65 years) and prostate volume (50cc). The historical changes does not influence over prevalence.

MRI factors to predict urinary incontinence after retropubic/laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer can be treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) and provoke a troublesome side effect: urinary incontinence (UI). We propose a verification of the usefulness of MRI and an identification of which structures are involved in UI after RP. METHODS: Between September 2002 and December 2011, 550 patients underwent RP. We performed MRI to evaluate extraprostatic disease before surgery. To evaluate patient status, we measured the following structures: length (LP), width (WP), height (HP) and volume (PV) of the prostate, membranous urethral length (MUL), urethral wall thickness (UWT), levator ani muscle (LAM) and obturator internus muscle (OIM) thickness, ratio of levator ani muscle/prostate volume (LAM/PV), volume of the urethra (VU). UI was defined according to ICS definition as the complaint of any involuntary leakage of urine and evaluated 1 year after surgery. Analyses were performed by mean comparisons, univariate and multivariate logistic regression with a 1000-resample bootstrapping. RESULTS: Means of measurements were: LP 4.46 cm, WP 5.15 cm, HP 3.9 cm, PV 49.3 cc; LAM 0.51 cm, OIM 1.46 cm; MUL 1.43 cm, UWT 1.38 cm; and LAM/PV 0.013 cm/cc, VU 2.33 cc. One hundred and twenty-two (22.2 %) patients complained of urine leakage. Univariate obtained differences in PV, OIM, MUL, and UWT. After adjusting by confounders, multivariate analysis showed: MUL: [OR 0.134; CI 95 % (0.022-0.493); P 0.006]; PV: [OR 1.016; CI 95 % (1.004-1.029); P 0.005]; UWT: [OR 6.03; CI 95 % (1.068-44.1); P 0.033]. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a useful tool to predict UI after RP. The MUL and PV are well-identified structures that are involved in UI. Our study shows that UWT also influences UI.

Survival analysis of patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy treated with androgen deprivation: Castration-resistance influential factors.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the prognosis of patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and to determine the influential factors to castration resistance (CR) and death. METHODS: From a series of 1310 patients with T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989 and 2012, 371 had BCR. Patients with lymph node involvement were excluded. We analyzed only the 159 treated with salvage ADT. At the end of the study, 77 (48%) had developed CR. RESULTS: The median follow-up to CR was 9.2 years. The CR-resistant free survival (RFS) was 76 ± 3%, 62 ± 3% and 43 ± 9% in 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. The RFS median time was 14 years. In the multivariate study, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSA-DT) was <6 months (p = 0.01) (hazard ratio [HR] 3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-6.8, p = 0.007); seminal vesicle involvement (HR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5-6.2, p = 0.01) and PSA velocity in ng/mL/year (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.5, p = 0.002) with better cut-off points of 0.84 ng/mL/year (p = 0.04) (HR 4; 95% CI 1.7-9.4, p = 0.001) were influential variables. Specific survival (SS) at 5, 10 and 15 years since surgery was 96 ± 1, 85 ± 2 and 76 ± 4, respectively. The time of CR to death was 30 ± 6% at 5 years, with the median at 3.2 years. In the multivariate only Ki 67 (HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.005-1.08, p = 0.02) had an independent influence. CONCLUSIONS: In BCR patients treated with ADT, the median to CR was 14 years. PSA-DT <6 months, PSA velocity (ng/mL/year) and seminal vesicle involvement were influential variables. From the CR, the median time to death was 3.2 years. Ki-67 marker was an independent influence.

Case of emphysematous pyelonephritis in kidney allograft: Conservative treatment.

Emphysematous pyelonephritis is an acute necrotizing infection with gas in the kidney and perinephric space that carries a bad prognosis. Apart from its predisposing clinical entities, diabetes mellitus and immune-incompetence are quite common in patients with this infection. We report a case of a 53-year-old kidney transplant recipient diabetic male, suffering from recurrent fever, abdominal pain and nausea episodes. Immediate broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered and percutaneous drainage was performed after the diagnosis. The bacteria involved were Stahpylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli. After 4 weeks of antibiotic treatment and abscesses drainage, the case was resolved. Consecutives urine cultures and ultrasonographies confirm the complete resolution of the disease. We discuss the predisposing factors, clinical presentation and management.

Radical prostatectomy. Detailed surgical margins. Prognostic value of multifocal involvement in pT2 (+).

OBJECTIVES: We intend to analyze the prognostic value of positive surgical margins depending on their number and location in pT2 patients. METHODS: We analyze 448 (34.3%) patients with positive surgical margins from a series of 1,310 T1-T2 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2012. Of them 164 are pT2 (+). 119 (72.6% ) have unifocal affectation (41 (34.5%) unifocal in right lobe; 35 (29.4%) unifocal in left lobe, 40 (33.6%) unifocal in apex, 3 (2.5% ) unifocal proximal) and 45 (27.4%) multifocal involvement. RESULTS: Unifocal and multifocal pT2(+)patients have not evidenced significant differences in any of the clinicopathologic variables compared. However the BPFS at 5 and 10 years is significantly worse in the multifocal group, (p<0.000) In the BPFS multivariate study of 164 pT2(+ )influential variables are: multifocal involvement (HR: 3.4; 95%IC 1.7-6.9 p<0.000) and PSA (HR: 1.03; 95%IC 1.02-1.05 p<0.000), being PSA >15 ng/ml )HR: 3.7; 95%IC 2.1-6.6 p<0.000 ( the best cut-off point. Risk groups: Using the independent influence variables, the best model (using Cox models ) includes two risk groups: Group 1 (0 variables): They are pT2(+) with unifocal affectation and PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Their BPFS are 81±4% and 77±4% (5 and 10 years). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables): They are pT2 (+) with multifocal involvement, PSA> 15 ng/ml or both of them, (37%). Their BPFS are 46±6% and 26±7% (5 and 10 years). The BPFS differs significantly between the two groups (p<0.000). The Group 1 BPFS is similar to the pT2 (-) patients, (p:0.242). The Group 2 BPFS is similar to the pT3(+) patients, (p:0.637). The model explained significantly better the BPFS than any of the individual variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In pT2(+) patients the prognosis is significantly worse in multifocal involvement. In addition two groups of patients can be clearly distinguished from the BPFS point view according to their influential variables. The data suggest that since the prognostic point view the second group is understaged while the first is overstaged.

Prostatectomía radical. Margen quirúrgico pormenorizado. Valor pronóstico de la multifocalidad en pT2 con márgenes afectados / Radical prostatectomy. Detailed surgical margins. Prognostic value of multifocal involvement in pT2(+)

OBJETIVO: Pretendemos analizar en los pacientes pT2 con márgenes afectados el valor pronóstico real de los márgenes en función de su número y localización. MÉTODOS: Analizamos 448 (34,3%) pacientes con márgenes afectados de una serie de 1.310 pacientes T1-T2 tratados mediante prostatectomía radical entre 1.989-2.012. De ellos 164 son pT2(+), 119 (72,6%) tienen afectación unifocal 41 (34,5%) unifocal en lóbulo derecho; 35 (29,4%) unifocal en lóbulo izquierdo, 40 (33,6%) unifocal en ápex, 3 (2,5%) unifocal proximal) y 45 (27,4%) afectación multifocal. RESULTADOS: Los pT2(+) unifocales y multifocales no evidencian diferencias significativas en ninguna de las variables clínico-patológicas comparadas. Sin embargo la Supervivencia Libre de Progresión Bioquímica (SLPB) a 5 y 10 años es significativamente peor en el grupo multifocal, (p<0,000). En el estudio multivariado son influyentes en la SLPB de los 164 pT2(+): afectación multifocal (HR: 3,4; IC 95% 1,7-6,9 p<0,000) y PSA (HR: 1,03; IC 95% 1,02-1,05 p<0,000) siendo el mejor punto de corte, PSA >15 ng/ml (HR: 3,7; IC 95% 2,1-6,6 p<0,000). Grupos de Riesgo: Utilizando las variables de influencia independiente el mejor modelo utilizando los modelos de Cox incluye dos grupos de riesgo: Grupo 1 (0 variables presentes): Son pT2(+) con afectación unifocal y PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Su SLPB es 81±4% y 77±4% (5 y 10 años). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables presentes): Son pT2(+) con afectación multifocal, PSA>15 ng/ml o ambas, (37% restante). Su SLPB es 46±6% y 26±7% (5 y 10 años). La SLPB es significativamente diferente entre ambos grupos (p<0,000). La SLPB del Grupo 1 es similar a la de los pacientes pT2 márgenes (-), (p=0,242). La SLPB del Grupo 2 es similar a la de los pT3 márgenes (+), (p=0,637). El modelo explica significativamente mejor la SLPB que cualquiera de las variables analizadas individualmente (estudio multivariado, modelo de Cox). CONCLUSIONES: En los pT2(+) el pronóstico es significativamente peor cuando la afectación es multifocal. Además pueden diferenciarse claramente dos grupos de pacientes desde el punto de vista de la SLPB según sus variables influyentes. Los datos sugieren que desde el punto de vista del pronóstico el segundo grupo está infraestadiado mientras que el primero está sobreestadiado

OBJECTIVES: We intend to analyze the prognostic value of positive surgical margins depending on their number and location in pT2 patients. METHODS: We analyze 448 (34.3%) patients with positive surgical margins from a series of 1,310 T1-T2 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2012. Of them 164 are pT2(+). 119 (72.6%) have unifocal affectation (41 (34.5%) unifocal in right lobe; 35 (29.4%) unifocal in left lobe, 40 (33.6%) unifocal in apex, 3 (2.5%) unifocal proximal) and 45 (27.4%) multifocal involvement. RESULTS: Unifocal and multifocal pT2(+) patients have not evidenced significant differences in any of the clinicopathologic variables compared. However the BPFS at 5 and 10 years is significantly worse in the multifocal group, (p<0.000). In the BPFS multivariate study of 164 pT2(+)influential variables are: multifocal involvement (HR: 3.4; 95%IC 1.7-6.9 p<0.000) and PSA (HR: 1.03; 95%IC 1.02-1.05 p<0.000), being PSA >15 ng/ml (HR: 3.7; 95%IC 2.1-6.6 p<0.000) the best cut-off point. Risk groups: Using the independent influence variables, the best model (using Cox models) includes two risk groups: Group 1 (0 variables): They are pT2(+) with unifocal affectation and PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Their BPFS are 81±4% and 77±4% (5 and 10 years). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables): They are pT2(+) with multifocal involvement, PSA>15 ng/ml or both of them, (37%). Their BPFS are 46±6% and 26±7% (5 and 10 years). The BPFS differs significantly between the two groups (p<0.000). The Group 1 BPFS is similar to the pT2(-) patients, (p:0.242). The Group 2 BPFS is similar to the pT3(+) patients, (p:0.637). The model explained significantly better the BPFS than any of the individual variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In pT2(+) patients the prognosis is significantly worse in multifocal involvement. In addition two groups of patients can be clearly distinguished from the BPFS point view according to their influential variables. The data suggest that since the prognostic point view the second group is understaged while the first is overstaged

Radical prostatectomy. Prognostic value of positive surgical margins in pT2 patients.

OBJECTIVES: We intend to assess the prognostic influence of surgical margins on the biochemical progression free survival (BPFS) in patients classified as pT2 after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We analyze a series of 1,132 T1-T2 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2009. PT3b, pT4 and patients with lymph node involvement were excluded from the series. The clinicopathologic variables and the BPFS of pT2(+), pT2(-) and pT3 patients are compared. The influential clinicopathologic variables in the BPFS are identified in the pT2(+) group and risk groups are designed. RESULTS: Of 1,051 patients evaluated finally: 598 (59,6) were pT2(-) 163 (15,5%) pT2(+)80 (7,6%) pT3a(-) and 210 (20%) pT3(+). Clinical characteristics of pT2(+). It is homogeneous with the pT2(-) group and significantly better than pT3(+) group in all the clinicopathologic variables evaluated. 5 and 10 year BPFS of the pT2(68 ± 3% and 57 ± 5%) is significantly worse than pT2( -)(87 ± 1% and 79 ± 2%), similar to pT3a(-) (75 ± 5% and 64 ± 7%and better than pT3(+) (44 ± 3% and (36 ± 3%) BPFS pT2(+) influential factors: Univariate study : Pathological Gleason score 7-10 (HR:2.1 95% IC: 1.1-4.1), (p=0.02)MRI that indicates T3 (HR:3.2 95%IC: 1.4-7.3), (p=0.04) PSA > 15 ng-ml (HR:4 95% IC: 2-8.2), (p < 0.0001) and high risk D'Amico group (HR:3.3 95%IC: 1.3-8.5), (p=0.01) are influential variables. A risk model with the involved variables can be designed. Each variable present is a point. Two groups are designed : Group 1 (0-1 variable) Group 2 (2-3 variables). 5 and 10 year BPFS for Group 1 are 71±5% and 69 ± 5%, and are 37 ± 12% and 22 ± 11% for Group 2. (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical margins in pT2 patients have independent influence in the BPFS. The group is heterogeneous and it can be divided into two risk groups accordingly to the BPFS influential variables: a larger group (86% pT2(+) with worse prognosis than pT2(-), and a smaller group (remaining 14%) with similar prognosis to pT3 (+).It is likely that pT2(+) patients are a mixture of understaged patients with others with iatrogenic margins or false margins due to poor assessment of the surgical specimen.

Prostatectomía radical. Valor pronóstico de los márgenes afectados en pacientes pT2 / Radical prostatectomy. Prognostic value of positive surgical margins in pT2 patients

OBJETIVO: Valorar en pacientes prostatectomizados y calificados como pT2, la influencia pronóstica sobre la Supervivencia Libre de Progresión Bioquímica (SLPB) de los márgenes afectados. MÉTODOS: Analizamos retrospectivamente una serie de 1.132 pacientes con cáncer de próstata T1-T2 tratados con prostatectomía radical entre 1.989-2.009. Se excluyen los pacientes con afectación de vesícula seminal, afectación ganglionar y pT4. Comparamos las variables clínico-patológicas y la SLPB de los pT2 (+) con pT2 (-) y pT3. Identificamos las variables clínico-patológicas influyentes en la SLPB de los pT2 (+) y con ellas diseñamos grupos de riesgo. RESULTADOS: De los 1.051 incluídos finalmente, 598 (59,6%) son pT2 (-); 163 (15,5%) pT2 (+); 80 (7,6%) pT3a (-) y 210 (20%) pT3 (+). Características clínicas de pT2 (+). Es homogéneo con el grupo pT2 (-) y significativamente mejor que los pT3(+) en todas las variables clínico-patológicas evaluadas. La (SLPB) de los pT2 (+) (68±3% y 57±5%) es significativamente peor que la de los pT2 (-) (87±1% y 79±2%), similar a los pT3a(-) (75±5% y 64±7%) y mejor que la de los pT3(+) (44±3% y 36±3%) en 5 y 10 años. Factores influyentes en SLPB en pT2 (+): Estudio univariado. Son influyentes: Gleason patológico 7-10 (HR:2,1; IC 95% 1,1-4,1), (p=0,02); RNM que indica T3 (HR:3,2; IC 95% 1,4-7,3), (p=0,04); PSA>15 ng/ml (HR:4; IC 95% 2-8,2), (p<0,0001) y D’Amico alto riesgo (HR:3,3; IC 95% 1,3-8,5), (p=0,01). Se diseña un modelo de riesgo con las variables implicadas. Cada variable presente es un punto. Se diseñan dos grupos: Grupo 1 (86%)(0-1 variable); Grupo 2 (14%)(2-3 variables). La SLPB del grupo 1 es a 5 y 10 años de 71±5% y 69±5% y la del grupo 2 es de 37±12% y 22±11%.(p<0,0001). CONCLUSIONES: La afectación de márgenes en pacientes pT2 tiene una influencia independiente en la SLPB. El grupo es heterogéneo y puede ser dividido según las variables influyentes en la SLPB en un grupo mayor (86% de pT2 (+)) con peor pronóstico que los pT2 (-), y un grupo menor (14 % restante) con pronóstico similar a pT3 (+). Es probable que los pacientes pT2 (+) sean una mezcla de pacientes infraestadiados con otros con márgenes y atrogénicos o falsos por mala valoración de la pieza operatoria (AU)

OBJECTIVES: We intend to assess the prognostic influence of surgical margins on the biochemical progression free survival (BPFS) in patients classified as pT2 after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We analyze a series of 1,132 T1-T2 patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2009. PT3b, pT4 and patients with lymph node involvement were excluded from the series. The clinicopathologic variables and the BPFS of pT2 (+), pT2 (-) and pT3 patients are compared. The influential clinicopathologic variables in the BPFS are identified in the pT2 (+) group and risk groups are designed.RESULTS: Of 1,051 patients evaluated finally: 598 (59,6%) were pT2 (-); 163 (15,5%) pT2 (+);80 (7,6%) pT3a (-) and 210 (20%) pT 3(+).Clinical characteristics of pT2 (+). It is homogeneous with the pT2(-) group and significantly better than pT3 (+) group in all the clinicopathologic variables evaluated. 5 and 10 year BPFS of the pT2 (+) (68±3% and 57±5%) is significantly worse than pT2 (-) (87±1% and 79±2%), similar to pT3a (-) (75±5% and 64±7%) and better than pT3 (+) (44±3% and 36±3%).BPFS pT2 (+) influential factors: Univariate study: Pathological Gleason score 7-10 (HR:2.1; 95% IC: 1.1-4.1), (p=0.02); MRI that indicates T3 (HR:3.2; 95%IC: 1.4-7.3), (p=0.04); PSA>15 ng/ml (HR:4; 95%IC: 2-8.2), (p<0.0001) and high risk D’Amico group (HR:3.3; 95%IC: 1.3-8.5), (p=0.01) are influential variables. A risk model with the involved variables can be designed. Each variable present is a point. Two groups are designed: Group 1 (0-1 variable); Group 2 (2-3 variables). 5 and 10 year BPFS for Group 1 are 71±5% and 69±5%, and are 37±12% and 22±11% for Group 2 (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical margins in pT2 patients have independent influence in the BPFS. The group is heterogeneous and it can be divided into two risk groups accordingly to the BPFS influential variables: a larger group (86% pT2(+)) with worse prognosis than pT2(-), and a smaller group (remaining 14%) with similar prognosis to pT3 (+).It is likely that pT2(+) patients are a mixture of understaged patients with others with iatrogenic margins or false margins due to poor assessment of the surgical specimen (AU)

Complications of kidney transplantation with grafts from expanded criteria donors.

PURPOSE: The limited availability of kidneys for transplantation has been addressed by expanding the criteria for allowing a donor kidney to be transplanted, but this tendency may cause suboptimal kidneys to be implanted and could be associated with greater risk of complications. METHODS: A retrospective study of 407 kidney transplantations was done to compare complications of transplantation with non-expanded (n = 244) and expanded criteria donors (n = 163). Expanded criteria donors were donors older than 60 years, or donors aged 50-60 years who had ≥ 2 of the following risk factors: hypertension, diabetes mellitus (type 2), creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, or death caused by stroke. RESULTS: Compared with transplant recipients from non-expanded criteria donors, transplant recipients from expanded criteria donors had significantly greater frequency of graft loss, delayed graft function, pneumonia, overall surgical complications, early reoperation, wound eventration, hydronephrosis, postoperative hemorrhage, and wound infection. When analyzing surgical complications types, a significant greater frequency of urologic, wound, vascular, early and late surgical complications was found. In terms of severity, expanded donor criteria transplantation was related to Clavien I, III, and IV complications. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation of kidneys from expanded criteria donors is associated with a significant higher risk of medical and surgical complications than kidneys from non-expanded criteria donors.

Recipient and donor risk factors for surgical complications following kidney transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate recipient and donor risk factors that are related to surgical complications after renal transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 419 kidney transplantations were analysed with regard to the influence of recipient and donor risk factors on the main postoperative surgical complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up for the entire group was 72.8 months (± 54.2 SD). Vascular complications were independently associated with donor age; and urological complications with recipient age >65 years and cyclosporine rather than tacrolimus therapy. Wound complications were independently associated with recipient age, preoperative dialysis time, recipient body mass index (BMI) and cyclosporine rather than tacrolimus therapy. Collections were independently associated with retransplantation, type 2 diabetes mellitus and wound complications. Overall surgical complications were associated with donor age and delayed graft function. In terms of severity, grade I complications were independently associated with recipient age and surgical revision, grade II with recipient age >50 years, grade III with recipient BMI, and grade IV with donor age. CONCLUSIONS: Recipient characteristics are the primary determinants of wound, urological and minor (Clavien grades I, II and III) complications; however, graft or donor characteristics are the primary risk factors for vascular, overall and major (Clavien grade IV) surgical complications.

Immediate renal Doppler ultrasonography findings (<24 h) and its association with graft survival.

PURPOSE: Renal Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) is the gold-standard image test for follow-up after renal transplantation, it is potentially useful to detect renal disease and it could be related with long-term survival. We evaluate whether renal graft survival can be predicted by immediate renal Doppler ultrasonography (IRDUS), defined as ultrasonography carried out in the first 24 h post-surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immediate renal DUS findings (resistance index, hydronephrosis, fluid collection, bruises, and vascularization abnormalities) and their association with graft survival were analyzed in a retrospective observational study of 343 renal allografts. Renal transplantation was done using a standard technique, and DUS was performed 24 h post-transplantation. The association of variables with graft survival was evaluated by Cox univariate and multivariate proportional hazards analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were used to examine graft survival. RESULTS: The follow-up median was 85 months. On IRDUS, 137 patients (39.9%) had abnormal findings. The best RI cutpoint for the prediction of graft survival was 0.7; therefore, we defined two different groups: RI ≤ 0.7 (n = 247) versus RI > 0.7 (n = 96). Univariate analysis revealed that graft survival was significantly lower in patients with RI > 0.7 (P ≤ 0.001), vascularization abnormalities (P ≤ 0.001) or bruises (P = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, the only factors independently associated with graft survival were RI (odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI 1.4-4.1) and vascularization abnormalities (odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.1-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: IRDUS can be useful, besides being highly useful in the diagnosis of graft primary dysfunction in the transplanted patient also yields information that can help to predict long-term graft survival.