Office or home versus 24-hour blood pressure measurement in stable kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to quantify hypertension control and evaluate concordance between all commonly available blood pressure modalities in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). METHODS: For this prospective cross-sectional study 89 stable KTR were recruited at the Charité Transplant Outpatient Clinic. For each study participant office (manual office blood pressure 'MOBP' and automated office blood pressure 'AOBP'), 7-day home (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (24h-ABPM) were performed. RESULTS: 80 of the 89 patients recruited had sufficient blood pressure recordings. Mean blood pressure for MOBP, AOBP, HBPM and 24h-ABPM was 129/73, 126/71, 131/85 and 130/81 mmHg, respectively. Uncontrolled hypertension, as defined by 24h-ABPM (mean ≥ 130/80 mmHg), was present in 53 (66%) patients. MOBP, AOBP and HBPM classified 19 (24%), 22 (28%) and 41 (51%) patients respectively as 'uncontrolled hypertensive'. The Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between systolic MOBP, AOBP, HBPM and Daytime-ABPM (mean bias ± SD: -1 ± 13 mmHg, -4 ± 13 mmHg, 1 ± 10 mmHg, respectively). Uncontrolled nighttime hypertension was present in 74 (93%) KTR, with 71 (89%) patients showing a non-physiological dipping pattern. Moderate positive correlation between Daytime-ABPM/HBPM and Nighttime-ABPM (Pearson Correlation Coefficients: 0.62-0.73), followed by MOBP/AOBP (Pearson Correlation Coefficients: 0.49-0.59) was noted. eGFR and proteinuria displayed weak correlation with 24h-, Daytime- and Nighttime-ABPM (absolute values of Pearson Correlation Coefficients: 0.04-0.41). No robust association with either 24h-, Daytime- or Nighttime-ABPM was observed for volume status exams. CONCLUSIONS: Masked hypertension is highly prevalent in KTR, especially due to high rates of uncontrolled nighttime hypertension. HBPM shows the narrowest limits of agreement with Daytime-ABPM. Daytime-ABPM and HBPM show the highest, albeit clinically insufficient, correlation with Nighttime-ABPM. Systematic integration of 24h-ABPM into clinical practice, as proposed by the '2023 ESH Guidelines for the Management of arterial hypertension', should not be withheld for the KTR population. Clinical trials evaluating treatment of hypertension in KTR are urgently needed.

Retrospective analysis of the perioperative outcome in living donor kidney transplantation with multiple renal arteries: does accessory vessel ligation affect the outcome?

PURPOSE: Accurate surgical reconstruction of arterial vascular supply is a crucial part of living kidney transplantation (LDKT). The presence of multiple renal arteries (MRA) in grafts can be challenging. In the present study, we investigated the impact of ligation versus anastomosis of small accessory graft arteries on the perioperative outcome. METHODS: Clinical and radiological outcomes of 51 patients with MRA out of a total of 308 patients who underwent LDKT with MRA between 2011 and 2020 were stratified in two groups and analyzed. In group 1 (20 patients), ligation of accessory arteries (ARAs) and group 2 (31 patients) anastomosis of ARAs was performed. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in the anastomosis-, surgery-, and warm ischemia time (WIT) in favor of group 1. Students t-test showed comparable serum creatinine levels of 2.33 (± 1.75) to 1.68 (± 0.83) mg/dL in group 1 and 2.63 (± 2.47) to 1.50 (± 0.41) mg/dL in group 2, were seen from 1 week to 1 year after transplant. No increased rates of Delayed graft function (DGF), primary transplant dysfunction and transplant rejection were seen, but graft loss and revision rates were slightly higher when the ARAs were ligated. Analysis of Doppler sonography revealed that segmental perfusion deficits tend to regenerate during the clinical course. CONCLUSION: Ligation of smaller accessory renal arteries may not affect the outcome of living kidney transplantation, except for a minor increase in the reoperation rate. Segmental perfusion deficits of the graft seem to regenerate in most cases as seen in Doppler sonography.

Transplant nephrectomy: indication, surgical approach and complications-experiences from a single transplantation center.

PURPOSE: Management of a failed kidney allograft, and the question whether it should be removed is a challenging task for clinicians. The reported risks for transplant nephrectomy (TN) vary, and there is no clear recommendation on indications or surgical approach that should be used. This study gives an overview of indications, compares surgical techniques, and identifies risk factors for higher morbidity. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted on all transplant nephrectomies performed between 2005 and 2020 at Charité Hospital Berlin, Department of Urology. Patient demographics, laboratory parameters, graft survival data, indication for TN, and surgical complications were extracted from medical reports. RESULTS: A total of 195 TN were performed, with graft intolerance syndrome being the most common indication in 52 patients (26.7%), acute rejection in 36 (18.5%), acute infection in 30 (15.4%), and other reasons to stop immunosuppression in 26 patients (13.3%). Rare indications were vascular complications in 16 (8.2%) and malignancies in the allograft in six (3.1%) cases. Extracapsular surgical approach was significantly more often used in cases of vascular complications and earlier allograft removal, but there was no difference in complication rates between extra- and intracapsular approach. Acute infection was identified as an independent risk factor for a complication grade IIIb or higher according to Clavien-Dindo classification, with a HR of 12.3 (CI 2.2-67.7; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Transplant nephrectomy should only be performed when there is a good indication, and non-elective surgery should be avoided, when possible, as it increases morbidity.

A single centre in-depth analysis of death with a functioning kidney graft and reasons for overall graft failure.

BACKGROUND: High numbers of unknown classifications and inconsistent methodologies in previous studies make the interpretation of causes leading to graft loss difficult. In addition, data on a holistic view looking at both death with a functioning graft (DWFG) and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) are sparse. METHODS: In this single-centre study we included 1477 adult kidney transplants performed between 1997 and 2017, of which all 286 DWFGs until the end of observation were analysed and causes for death assigned. Additionally, the results were compared with the causes of 303 DCGFs of the same cohort to evaluate the impact of causes for overall graft loss. RESULTS: The most frequent causes for DWFG were cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 30.8%, malignancy in 28.3% and infections in 21%. Only 9.4% of reasons for DWFG were unknown. Sudden death occurred in 40% (35/88) of patients classified as DWFG due to CVD. Overall graft loss was related to the effect of immunosuppression in 36.2% [infection 20.9% (123/589), malignancy 15.3% (90/589)] and CVD in 22.4% (132/589). In 27.4% (161/589), graft failure was associated with underimmunosuppression (rejection). For infections (60 DWFG, 63 DCGF) and CVD (88 DWFG, 44 DCGF), a considerable overlap was observed between DWFG and DCGF. For patients >70 years of age at transplantation, medical events accounted for 78% of overall graft losses and only 6.5% were associated with rejection. CONCLUSIONS: DWFG and DCGF share more causes for graft loss than previously reported and sudden death plays an underestimated role in death with a functioning graft.

Exploring the Complexity of Death-Censored Kidney Allograft Failure.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have thoroughly investigated the causes of kidney graft loss (GL), despite its importance. METHODS: A novel approach assigns each persistent and relevant decline in renal function over the lifetime of a renal allograft to a standardized category, hypothesizing that singular or multiple events finally lead to GL. An adjudication committee of three physicians retrospectively evaluated indication biopsies, laboratory testing, and medical history of all 303 GLs among all 1642 recipients of transplants between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2017 at a large university hospital to assign primary and/or secondary causes of GL. RESULTS: In 51.2% of the patients, more than one cause contributed to GL. The most frequent primary or secondary causes leading to graft failure were intercurrent medical events in 36.3% of graft failures followed by T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) in 34% and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in 30.7%. In 77.9%, a primary cause could be attributed to GL, of which ABMR was most frequent (21.5%). Many causes for GL were identified, and predominant causes for GL varied over time. CONCLUSIONS: GL is often multifactorial and more complex than previously thought.

The underestimated burden of monogenic kidney disease in adults waitlisted for kidney transplantation.

PURPOSE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health-care burden. Increasing evidence suggests that a considerable proportion of patients are affected by a monogenic kidney disorder. METHODS: In this study, the kidney transplantation waiting list at the Charité was screened for patients with undetermined cause of CKD. By next-generation sequencing (NGS) we targeted all 600 genes described and associated with kidney disease or allied disorders. RESULTS: In total, 635 patients were investigated. Of these, 245 individuals had a known cause of CKD (38.5%) of which 119 had a proven genetic disease (e.g., ADPKD, Alport). The other 340 patients (53.5%) were classified as undetermined diagnosis, of whom 87 had kidney failure (KF) onset <40 years. To this latter group genetic testing was offered as well as to those patients (n = 29) with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and all individuals (n = 21) suspicious for thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in kidney biopsy. We detected diagnostic variants in 26 of 126 patients (20.6%) of which 14 of 126 (11.1%) were pathogenic or likely pathogenic. In another 12 of 126 (9.5%) patients, variants of unknown significance (VUS) were detected. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the diagnostic value of comprehensive genetic testing among patients with undetermined CKD.

What happens after graft loss? A large, long-term, single-center observation.

The number of patients returning to dialysis after graft failure increases. Surprisingly, little is known about the clinical and immunological outcomes of this cohort. We retrospectively analyzed 254 patients after kidney allograft loss between 1997 and 2017 and report clinical outcomes such as mortality, relisting, retransplantations, transplant nephrectomies, and immunization status. Of the 254 patients, 49% had died 5 years after graft loss, while 27% were relisted, 14% were on dialysis and not relisted, and only 11% were retransplanted 5 years after graft loss. In the complete observational period, 111/254 (43.7%) patients were relisted. Of these, 72.1% of patients were under 55 years of age at time of graft loss and only 13.5% of patients were ≥65 years. Age at graft loss was associated with relisting in a logistic regression analysis. In the complete observational period, 42 patients (16.5%) were retransplanted. Only 4 of those (9.5%) were ≥65 years at time of graft loss. Nephrectomy had no impact on survival, relisting, or development of dnDSA. Patients after allograft loss have a high overall mortality. Immunization contributes to long waiting times. Only a very limited number of patients are retransplanted especially when ≥65 years at time of graft loss.

Does the Side Matter? A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Left and Right Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies.

OBJECTIVES: Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) is no longer regarded inferior to left LDN (LLDN). However, this knowledge is based on many studies suffering from inherent learning curves, center-specific imbalances, and different laparoscopic techniques. METHODS: Pure LDNs at a high-volume referral center from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient, graft characteristics, outcomes of LDNs, and corresponding open kidney transplantations were compared between LLDN and RLDN including a follow-up. RESULTS: 160 (78.4%) LLDNs and 44 (21.6%) RLDNs only differed regarding graft characteristics, as more right grafts had multiple veins (34.1 vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and worse scintigraphic function (44 vs. 51%, p < 0.001). RLDNs were shorter (201 vs. 220 min, p = 0.032) with longer warm ischemia time (165 vs. 140 s, p < 0.001), but left grafts were transplanted faster (160 vs. 171 min, p = 0.048). Recipients of right kidneys had more postoperative complications (grade 3: 25.6 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.020). At a follow-up of 45 (range 6-79) months, neither the kidney function, nor death-censored graft (5-year: LLDN 89 vs. 92%, p = 0.969) and patient survival (5-year: LLDN 95 vs. 98%, p = 0.747) differed. CONCLUSIONS: Pure LLDN and RLDN can have different outcomes at high-volume centers, especially higher complications for recipients of right grafts. However, long-term function and graft survival are the same irrespective of the chosen side.

Predictors of graft survival at diagnosis of antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection: a retrospective single-center cohort study.

Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a major cause of graft loss in renal transplantation. We assessed the predictive value of clinical, pathological, and immunological parameters at diagnosis for graft survival. We investigated 54 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven ABMR. Patients were treated according to our current standard regimen followed by triple maintenance immunosuppression. Patient characteristics, renal function, and HLA antibody status at diagnosis, baseline biopsy results, and immunosuppressive treatment were recorded. The risk of graft loss at 24 months after diagnosis and the eGFR slope were assessed. Multivariate analysis showed that eGFR at diagnosis and chronic glomerulopathy independently predict graft loss (HR 0.94; P = 0.018 and HR 1.57; P = 0.045) and eGFR slope (beta 0.46; P < 0.001 and beta -5.47; P < 0.001). Cyclophosphamide treatment (6× 15 mg/m2 ) plus high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) (1.5 g/kg) was superior compared with single-dose rituximab (1× 500 mg) plus low-dose IVIG (30 g) (HR 0.10; P = 0.008 and beta 10.70; P = 0.017) and one cycle of bortezomib (4× 1.3 mg/m2 ) plus low-dose IVIG (HR 0.16; P = 0.049 and beta 11.21; P = 0.010) regarding the risk of graft loss and the eGFR slope. In conclusion, renal function at diagnosis and histopathological signs of chronic ABMR seem to predict graft survival independent of the applied treatment regimen. Stepwise modifications of the treatment regimen may help to improve outcome.

Is a Retroaortic Vein a Risk Factor in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy?

INTRODUCTION: In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed. RESULTS: 221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49-0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97-1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09-20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67-2.72), 1.33 (0.70-1.89), 1.31 (0.95-2.13), 1.31 (0.98-2.13) and 1.33 (1.03-1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in renal transplantation: a single-center comparison between two regimens and a brief survey among the Eurotransplant renal transplantation centers.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) is an integral part of kidney transplantation to prevent surgical site infections (SSI). In July 2015, we changed our standard from a multiple-dose to a single-dose (SD) prophylaxis. Here, we report on results with both regimens and a related survey among Eurotransplant renal transplantation centers. METHODS: From July 2015, all kidney graft recipients of our center were scheduled to receive SD i.v. cefazolin (group SD, n = 107). They were compared to patients, transplanted since January 2014, receiving our previous standard (i.v. piperacillin/flucloxacillin) until postoperative day (POD) 7, plus oral sultamicillin until POD 10 (group MD, n = 105). The primary endpoint was the number of SSIs during a 3-month observational period. RESULTS: The frequency of SSI episodes was generally low (group SD vs. MD: 2 vs. 4, p = 0.40). Of note, urinary tract infections occurred in 40 SD vs. 36 MD patients, respectively (p = 0.60). Urinary tract infections were caused by Escherichia coli in 36.8%. Female gender was the only independent risk factor on multivariate analysis (p = 0.002). In addition, 12 episodes of urosepsis in both groups occurred. All-cause infection with multi-resistant bacteria occurred less frequently in SD vs. MD patients (3.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.16). A majority of Eurotransplant centers used i.v. single-dose cephalosporins (36.9%), although substances and duration varied remarkably. CONCLUSION: Single-dose cefazolin was equally effective and less expensive compared to our previous MD regimen. Based on these findings, we conclude that future prospective studies should be designed to confirm the non-inferiority of single-dose antibiotic regimens.

Influence of CT-based depth correction of renal scintigraphy in evaluation of living kidney donors on side selection and postoperative renal function: is it necessary to know the relative renal function?

PURPOSE: To analyse the influence of CT-based depth correction in the assessment of split renal function in potential living kidney donors. METHODS: In 116 consecutive living kidney donors preoperative split renal function was assessed using the CT-based depth correction. Influence on donor side selection and postoperative renal function of the living kidney donors were analyzed. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of postoperative renal function. RESULTS: A left versus right kidney depth variation of more than 1 cm was found in 40/114 donors (35%). 11 patients (10%) had a difference of more than 5% in relative renal function after depth correction. Kidney depth variation and changes in relative renal function after depth correction would have had influence on side selection in 30 of 114 living kidney donors. CT depth correction did not improve the predictability of postoperative renal function of the living kidney donor. In general, it was not possible to predict the postoperative renal function from preoperative total and relative renal function. In multivariate linear regression analysis, age and BMI were identified as most important predictors for postoperative renal function of the living kidney donors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results clearly indicate that concerning the postoperative renal function of living kidney donors, the relative renal function of the donated kidney seems to be less important than other factors. A multimodal assessment with consideration of all available results including kidney size, location of the kidney and split renal function remains necessary.

Bioavailability and costs of once-daily and twice-daily tacrolimus formulations in de novo kidney transplantation.

The use of once-daily tacrolimus in de novo kidney transplantation is increasingly common. Therefore, we were interested in bioavailability aspects of novel once-daily tacrolimus (LCPT, Envarsus) and once-daily tacrolimus extended-release formulation (ER-Tac, Advagraf) compared with twice-daily immediate-release tacrolimus (IR-Tac, Prograf). Furthermore, we calculated the costs. Kidney allograft recipients on tacrolimus-based immunosuppression within 2 clinical trials were included in a single-center analysis. The tacrolimus formulations were compared with respect to daily doses, doses per body weight, trough levels, and concentration-dose (C/D) ratio over 12 months. Intrapatient variability in trough levels and C/D ratios after 3 months was calculated. For the calculation of tacrolimus costs, German list prices were used. Eighty patients (21 with LCPT, 23 with IR-Tac, and 36 with ER-Tac) were analyzed. Pharmacokinetic comparisons revealed significantly higher bioavailability of LCPT at all visits. The variability of trough levels and C/D ratios in general was high and highest in LCPT patients. Different dose requirements translated into different costs. Median treatment costs during the first year were 7.825€ (IQR 6.195-8.892€) for LCPT, 9.813€ (IQR 7.630-16.832€) for IR-Tac, and 9.838€ (IQR 7.503- 13.541€) for ER-Tac (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = .003). The 3 tacrolimus formulations exhibit different dose requirements, exposure, and costs in favor of LCPT.

Immunologic outcome in elderly kidney transplant recipients: is it time for HLA-DR matching?

BACKGROUND: The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) neglects HLA matching for elderly (≥65 years) kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Few data regarding the influence of DR matching on clinical and immunologic outcome in elderly KTR exist. METHODS: This retrospective long-term observational study included 244 elderly out of n = 972 adult KTR between 2004 and 2014. Data analysis included patient and graft survival, biopsy-proven rejections [T-cell-mediated rejections (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejections] and development of de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA). Outcome data were assessed over a maximum period of 10 years. RESULTS: Due to the nature of the ESP, elderly KTR showed significantly more HLA mismatches, shorter time on dialysis and shorter cold ischaemia time. Elderly KTR had significantly worse graft and patient survival, and after 7 years, the rate of de novo DSA (33 versus 25%, P = 0.034) and TCMR (39 versus 27%, P < 0.001) was significantly higher compared with younger KTR. Multivariate analysis identified donor age, delayed graft function and HLA-DR mismatches as independent risk factors for TCMR. Within the group of elderly KTR, HLA-DR mismatches were associated with a significantly higher incidence of TCMR and development of de novo DSA. Occurrence of TCMR and de novo DSA in elderly KTR resulted in significantly worse graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly KTR, HLA-DR mismatches are independent risk factors for TCMR and the development of all classes of de novo DSA, both of which significantly impair graft survival. Introduction of HLA-DR matching in elderly KTR might significantly improve immunologic and overall outcome.

Long-Term Donor Outcomes after Pure Laparoscopic versus Open Living Donor Nephrectomy: Focus on Pregnancy Rates, Hypertension and Quality of Life.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare long-term donor outcomes after open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The focus was on pregnancy rates, hypertension and quality of life parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected using our institution's electronic database and a structured questionnaire. The study included 30 donors after open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and 131 donors after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). RESULTS: Demographic data did not differ between groups. When asked for their preference, significantly more donors in the LDN group would choose the same surgical approach again. The overall frequency of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the LDN group. The incidence of grade III complications was 2% after LDN and 10% after ODN (p = 0.79). Only 2 out of 15 female donors aged between 18 and 45 years delivered a healthy child after DN. On interview, only 4 out of 15 female donors declared the desire to have children after DN. CONCLUSIONS: From the donor perspective, long-term outcomes after LDN are more favorable than after ODN. To ensure favorable functional outcomes, strict preoperative donor selection and diligent long-term donor follow-up are required.

Pretransplant virtual PRA and long-term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients.

Virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRA) have been implemented to gauge sensitization worldwide. It is unclear how it associates with long-term outcomes, and its correlation with peak (pPRA) or actual (aPRA) has not been studied. We retrospectively reviewed data from 18- to 65-year-old kidney-only transplant patients during 1.1.1996-31.7.2011 in our center. PRAs were calculated based on solid-phase techniques. Of the 726 qualified cases, regardless of the PRA type, sensitized patients (PRA > 5%) had more females and previous transplant. Highly sensitized (HS, PRA > 50%) had longer waiting time, lower transplant rate, less living donor, more delayed graft function, and acute rejection. The conformity between vPRA and pPRA in HS was 75%, 57% between pPRA and aPRA. Forty-three percent (61/142) patients whose pPRA was >5% had no detectable aPRA and maintained similar outcomes as sensitized patients. Multivariate analysis showed consistently lower death-censored graft survival in HS defined by vPRA [HR 2.086 (95% CI 1.078-4.037), P < 0.05] and pPRA [HR 2.139 (95% CI 1.024-4.487), P < 0.05]. Both vPRA and pPRA provided reliable way estimating sensitization and predicting long-term graft survival, while aPRA might underestimate true sensitization. vPRA might be the most objective parameter to gauge sensitization.

Outcomes after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two laparoscopic surgeons with different levels of expertise.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of surgeon experience on donor and recipient outcomes after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Results of a LLDN expert were compared with those of an LLDN novice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2008 and October 2010 the last 20 cases of a series of 130 consecutive LLDNs, performed by an expert (EXP) were compared with the first 20 cases of an LLDN novice (NOV). Donor and recipient outcomes were evaluated. The novice was mentored by the expert during his initial four LLDN cases. RESULTS: Donor and recipient demographics were not different between the two surgeon groups. Total operating time and warm ischaemia time during LLDN was significantly longer in the NOV group compared with the EXP group (273 min vs 147 min and 213 s vs 162 s, respectively). The incidence of donor complications was low in both groups. Length of hospital stay among donors did not differ between groups. Although delayed graft function, rejection rates and postoperative serum creatinine levels indicated slightly poorer recipient outcomes in the NOV group, differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring by an experienced urological laparoscopist may help an LLDN novice to generate acceptable donor and recipient outcomes. Whether or not prolonged operating times and warm ischaemia times during the early phase of an LLDN experience are risk factors for impaired graft function needs further evaluation.

Volume matters: CT-based renal cortex volume measurement in the evaluation of living kidney donors.

Currently, no international standard for the pre-transplant evaluation of living donor renal function exists. Following a standardized questionnaire on current practice in all Eurotransplant (ET) centers, we compared a new CT-based technique to measure renal cortex volume with our standard of DTPA-clearance combined with MAG3-scintigraphy (DTPA × MAG3) and with creatinine-based methods in 167 consecutive living kidney donors. Most ET centers use creatinine-clearance (64%) to measure total renal function and radioistopic methods (82%) to assess split renal function. Before transplantation, CT-measured total cortex volume (r = 0.67; P < 0.001) and estimated GFR using the Cockcroft-Gault formula [eGFR(CG)] (r = 0.55; P < 0.001) showed the strongest correlation with DTPA-clearance. In contrast, the correlation between DTPA-clearance and creatinine clearance was weak (r = 0.21; P = 0.02). A strong correlation was observed between CT-measured split cortex volume and MAG3-measured split renal function (r = 0.93; P < 0.001). A strong correlation was also found between pre-transplant split renal function assessed by eGFR(CG) together with cortex volume measurement and post-transplant eGFR(CG) of both, the donor (r = 0.83; P < 0.001) and the recipient (r = 0.75; P < 0.001). In conclusion CT-based assessment of renal cortex volume bears the potential to substitute existing methods to assess pre-transplant living donor split renal function.