Comparative Study on Variation of Quality of Life of Patients of Preemptive Kidney Transplantation and Nonpreemptive Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There have been few studies that have reported the influence of kidney transplantation on the quality of life (QOL) of patients of preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) and nonpreemptive kidney transplantation (NPKT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients of PKT and 49 patients of NPKT were employed as study subjects. A questionnaire survey using Short Form 36 and Kidney Disease QOL on patients' physical and psychological QOL was performed for these patients prior to transplantation and 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after transplantation. RESULTS: The analysis of results has revealed that transplantation clearly has improved the physical and psychological QOL in patients with end-stage renal disease. For the items regarding physical burdens incurred by the transplantation, patient QOL deteriorated on a single occasion 1 month after the transplantation while it was improved 1 year after the transplantation. For the items regarding psychological burdens, the mental condition of the patients was improved overall without deterioration over time. Concerning the "Effect of Kidney Disease" and "Burden of Kidney Disease," QOL was significantly better in PKT than NPKT at baseline before transplantation, although the significant difference gradually decreased 1 month and 3 months after the transplantation and disappeared after 1 year. CONCLUSION: Transplantation certainly improved the QOL of patients with end-stage renal disease. Before transplantation, PKT was clearly better than NPKT in the QOL items associated with "Burden of Kidney Disease." This indicated that patients of PKT have improved QOL compared to patients of NPKT, and that the overall awareness of kidney disease is decreased. A postoperative gap in mental and bodies was observed especially in PKT, however, could be overcome by nursing interventions.

Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: 13 Cases Studied at a Single Center.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of surgical prostatectomy in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). METHODS: Between January 2008 and February 2017, we identified 13 RTRs who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and underwent radical prostatectomy. We reviewed all available clinicopathologic data for these 13 patients. RESULTS: The median patient age was 61 years and median serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 8.79 ng/mL. The mean period between transplantation and diagnosis of prostate cancer was 136 months. The sources for the kidney transplants included 10 living and 3 deceased donors. Biopsies indicated that the Gleason scores were 7 in 10 patients and 8 to 10 in 3 patients. Meanwhile, the D'Amico risk classification indicated an intermediate risk in 9 patients and a high risk in 4 patients. Eight patients were at stage cT1 and 5 were at stage cT2. The surgical procedure was retropubic radical prostatectomy in one recipient, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 3 recipients, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 9 RTRs. Intraoperative complications were not noted in any patient, although one patient demonstrated postoperative complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3). An indwelling urinary catheter was required in 3 patients for over 3 weeks due to delayed wound healing. Biochemical recurrence evaluated by PSA monitoring occurred in four patients. Postoperative graft function was stable in all but one patient who required resumption of dialysis before prostatectomy; however, all patients are alive at the time of publication with 12 patients showing well-functioning renal allografts. CONCLUSION: Prostatectomy may be a feasible and effective technique as an initial treatment for RTRs with localized prostate cancer.