RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There remains a paucity of modern data comparing early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus chronic corticosteroid (CCS) immunosuppression in simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) transplant recipients with long-term follow-up. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of ESW compared to CCS post-SPK. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center matched comparison with the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR). Patients from University of Illinois Hospital (UIH) represented the ESW group and were compared to those matched CCS patients from the IPTR. Included patients were adult recipients of a primary SPK transplant between 2003 and 2018 within the US receiving rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction. Patients were excluded if they had early technical failures, missing IPTR data, graft thrombosis, re-transplant, or positive crossmatch SPK. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were matched and included in the analysis. Patients were predominantly African American (46.15%) males (64.1%) with Type 1 diabetes etiology (92.31%). Overall pancreas allograft survival (hazard ratio [HR] = .89, 95% confidence interval [CI] .34-2.30, p = .81) and kidney allograft survival (HR = .80, 95%CI .32-2.03, p = .64) were similar between the two groups. Immunologic pancreas allograft loss was statistically similar at 1-year (ESW 1.3% vs. CCS 0%, p = .16), 5-year (ESW 1.3% vs. CCS 7.7%, p = .16), and 10-year (ESW 11.0% vs. CCS 7.7%, p = .99). The 1-year (ESW 2.6% vs. CCS 0%, p > .05), 5-year (ESW 8.3% vs. CCS 7.0%, p > .05), and 10-year (ESW 22.7% vs. CCS 9.9%, p = .2575) immunologic kidney allograft loss were also statistically similar. There was no difference in 10-year overall patient survival (ESW 76.2% vs. CCS 65.6%, p = .63). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between allograft or patient survival post-SPK when comparing an ESW or CCS protocol. Future assessment is needed to determine differences in metabolic outcomes.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Despite the present use ofthe laparoscopic technique for living-donor kidney nephrectomy, a search for alternative techniques continues.The aim of this study was to compare finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included retrospective data of 95 consecutive donors in a transplant center who were under going donor nephrectomy RESULTS: Donor demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. There were fewer female donors in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy treatment group (70.5% vs 29.5%; P = .003), but median body mass index was similar between groups (28 vs 26 kg/m²; P = .032). Patients who received laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had longer operative duration (3.5 vs 1.2 h; P < .001), longer combined length of incision (6 vs 5 cm; P = .001), andshorter median hospital length of stay (3 vs 4 days; P < .001). A left nephrectomy was preferred in both groups. Minor postoperative complications occurred less often in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy group (14.7% vs 31.6%; P = .0094). Donors who received laparoscopic nephrectomy had lower glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after donation (60 vs 89 mL/min/1.73 m²; P < .001) than donors who received finger-assisted nephrectomy. However, recipients of donors of both procedures had similar glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after transplant (65 vs 69 mL/min/1.73 m²; P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy is a successful and safe alternative versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, providing favorable results for patients in terms of complications and outcomes.