Assessment of Restored Kidney Transplantation Including the Use of Wider Criteria for Accepting Renal Donors After Cancer Excision.

The transplantation of kidneys after cancer excision (restored kidney transplantation, RKT) warrants further evaluation as a source of kidneys for transplantation. We determined whether larger cancers can be safely transplanted, the risks of adverse events from RKT, and whether RKT confers a survival advantage for patients waiting for transplantation. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 23 dialysis patients awaiting transplant underwent RKT at John Hunter Hospital, Australia between 2008 and 2015. Patients were >60 years old and accepted onto the National Organ Matching Service. This RKT Group was divided into donor renal cancers ≤30 mm and >30-≤50 mm. Adverse event profiles for RKT recipients were compared with 22 standard live donor recipients using logistic regression analyses. Recipient and transplant survivals for RKT were compared with 2050 controls from Australian New Zealand Dialysis Transplant Registry using Cox regression models. To increase statistical power for survival analyses, data from 25 RKT recipients from Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane were added, thus creating 48 RKT recipients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mortality, transplant failure nor AEs between the 2 cancer Groups. RKT increased the risks of Adverse event profiles (odds ratio: 6.48 [2.92-15.44]; P < 0.001). RKT reduced mortality risk by 30% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70 [0.36-1.07]; P = 0.299) compared with those continuing on the transplant list who may or may not be transplanted. RKT significantly reduced mortality risk for those remaining on dialysis (HR: 2.86 [1.43-5.72]; P = 0.003). Transplant survival for RKT was reduced compared with control deceased donor (HR: 0.42 [0.21-0.83]; P = 0.013) and live donor transplants (HR: 0.33 [0.02-0.86]; P =0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The use of larger carefully selected cancer-resected kidneys for transplantation appears safe and effective. RKT confers a possible survival advantage compared with waiting for transplantation, an increased survival compared with those remaining on dialysis but reduced transplant survival.

Functional significance and risk factors for lymphocele formation after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocele development following renal transplantation is a significant adverse event. It may cause acute graft dysfunction or venous obstruction. There are no consistent risk factors reported in literature. Perioperative fluid balance may lead to increased lymphocele formation and has never been studied. We aimed to analyse incidence and risk factors for lymphocele formation. We hypothesized that overhydration in perioperative period is a risk factor. METHODS: We analysed 250 consecutive renal transplant recipients from 2006 to 2014. All recipients had undergone protocol screening by computerized tomography and ultrasound scan at 3 months post-transplant. We analysed risk factors for lymphocele formation. Comparisons between lymphocele and no-lymphocele groups were made with binary logistic regression analyses. Renal function was compared between treated, untreated and no-lymphocele groups with linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 250 (12.4%) transplant recipients developed lymphocele. Fourteen of 31 (45.4%) recipients required intervention due to symptoms (venous obstruction being the most common). Surgical drainage was done in all symptomatic patients (11 laparoscopic and three open). Two of 11 (18%) recipients had recurrence after laparoscopic drainage. There were no significant differences in risk factors between the lymphocele and no-lymphocele groups. Renal function was comparable between no-lymphocele and treated lymphocele groups. Untreated lymphocele group trended towards better graft function at 1 year (P = 0.051). CONCLUSION: Post-transplant lymphocele developed one in eight transplant recipients and tended to occur in those with good renal function. Around half of the recipients with lymphocele required intervention with good recovery of long-term renal function. No risk factor for lymphocele development was established.

Interns' assessment and management of three common urological conditions: a survey of their knowledge and skills. Are they adequately prepared for clinical practice?

AIMS: To assess interns knowledge and skills on three common urological conditions: prostate assessment, acute urinary retention, and urinary tract infection. METHODS: This study (in NSW, Australia) involved the distribution of prospective anonymous questionnaires to all interns during their orientation week at the beginning of their internship, and again following 6 months of clinical rotations. The questionnaires comprised of three main areas: education on digital rectal examination, management of acute urinary retention, and management of urinary tract infection. RESULTS: The majority of recent graduates have poor knowledge and skills in assessment of digital rectal examination (DRE) as well as management of acute urinary retention and urinary tract infection. However following 6 months of clinical rotations, the majority of interns are able to perform more than five DREs and urinary catheterisations. Interns also gained greater insights and are able to exercise valued judgment in the management of urinary retention and urinary tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Graduating interns are inadequately prepared on assessment and management of common urological conditions. Valuable experiences are gained during clinical training and structured internship education sessions, as evident by the greatly improved result after 6 months of the internship.