RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A kidney transplant is the best method for treating terminal kidney failure. Long-term results of kidney transplants from living donors are significantly better than transplants from dead donors. Living kidney donors are healthy people who undergo a major operation in order to improve the health of another person. Therefore, major emphasis is on safety, low level of invasiveness and a desirable cosmetic effect of the donor nephrectomy. Since 2012, the Department of Urology at the University Hospital in Olomouc has performed 12 kidney harvestings from living donors. The kidney harvesting was conducted using various techniques. CASE REPORT: The first robotic assisted kidney harvesting in the Czech Republic was performed in June 2022. The donor was a 57-year-old man who donated his kidney to his 32-year-old daughter. The left kidney was evaluated as suitable for kidney harvesting. The operation took 174 min. The kidney's warm ischemia was 145 s. Based on the Clavien Dindo classification, no 2nd degree or high post-operative complications were recorded. The donor's pre-operative glomerular filtration was 1.63 mL/s. Six months post-operation, it went down to 1.19 mL/s. This represents a 27% decrease. The kidney recipient did not require early dialysis. Six months post-operation, the recipient's glomerular filtration was 2.03 mL/s. CONCLUSION: In the hands of experienced professionals and transplantation centres, robotic assisted donor nephrectomy is a feasible and safe option for this operation. It not only provides all the advantages of a laparoscopic operation but it also adds other technical improvements and minimizes intraoperative stress on the surgeon. Currently, the global trend is moving towards increasing the ratio of robotic assisted donor nephrectomies.
RESUMO
During endoscopic procedures for suspected urothelial tumors of the upper urinary tract, radiographic imaging using an iodinated contrast medium is often required. However, following ureteropyelography, we detected changes in cytology characteristics not correlating with real cytology findings in naive urine. The aim of our study was to assess cytology changes between naive and postcontrast urine according to The Paris System of cytology classification. Methods: We prospectively assessed urine samples from 89 patients (23 patients with histologically proven urothelial cancer and 66 healthy volunteers). The absence of malignancy was demonstrated by CT urography and/or ureteroscopy. The study was single blind (expert cytopathologist) and naïve Paris system for urine cytology assessment was used. Furthermore, additional cytological parameters were analyzed (e.g., specimen cellularity, degree of cytolysis, cytoplasm and nucleus color, chromatin and nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio). Results: Our study showed statistically significant differences when comparing naïve and postcontrast urine in healthy volunteers (only 51 % concordance, p = 0.001) versus malignant urine specimens (82 % concordance). The most important differences were in the shift from The Paris System category 2 (negative) to 1 (non-diagnostic) and from category 2 (negative) to 3 (atypia). Other significant changes were found in the assessment of specimen cellularity (p = 0.0003), degree of cytolysis (p = 0.001), cytoplasm color (p = 0.003), hyperchromasia (p = 0.001), course chromatin (p = 0.002), nucleo-cytoplasmatic ratio (p = 0.001) and nuclear borders' irregularity (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our unique study found crucial changes in the cytological assessment of naive and postcontrast urine and we confirm that postcontrast urine is more often assessed as abnormal, suspect or non-diagnostic. Therefore, before urine collection for cytology, the clinician should avoid administration of iodinated contrast into the urinary tract.