Search

Introduction: The left kidney is often preferred for living donor kidney transplantation because of its anatomical advantages. However, the right kidney may be procured due to donor conditions. Few studies have assessed the safety and graft outcome of right retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN). This study aimed to compare the outcomes between right and left RDN with respect to donor outcome and the graft function of recipients. Methods: This retrospective study included 230 consecutive living donor kidney transplants performed at our institution between May 2019 and March 2023. We reviewed the outcomes of kidney transplant in the right and left kidneys after RDN. Results: A total of 230 living donor kidney transplants were performed, with 32 donors receiving right RDN (right RDN group) and 198 donors receiving left RDN (left RDN group). The renal veins and ureters were significantly shorter in the right RDN group than in the left RDN group (both p <.001). Donor operation and warm ischemia time were significantly longer in the right RDN group than in the left RDN group (p =.012 and p <.001, respectively). None of the groups exhibited any cases of delayed graft function owing to donor‐related reasons. Perioperative changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate of recipients and death‐censored graft survival were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: In RDN, the outcomes of right donor nephrectomy were comparable to those of left donor nephrectomy in terms of donor safety and recipient renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have focused on the outcome of dialysis for kidney graft failure. We investigated the outcomes of dialysis for graft failure. We retrospectively studied 52 patients undergoing dialysis for graft failure at our facility from January 2004 to December 2018. The mean age at initiation of dialysis was 51.8 ± 13.5 years. The patient survival rates after initiation of dialysis at 1, 3, and 5 years were 96.0%, 93.8%, and 82.4%, respectively. The rate of unplanned initiation was 44.2%. In multivariate logistic analysis, lack of follow‐up by nephrologists and pre‐emptive kidney transplantation (PEKT) tended to be risk factors for unplanned initiation (P = 0.065 and P = 0.014, respectively). Our study suggests that the prognosis of patients with dialysis for graft failure is acceptable. Dialysis for graft failure, especially in patients with PEKT, tends to be unplanned, and for safe initiation, early involvement of nephrologists may be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Data on the treatment of chronic active T cell‐mediated rejection (CA‐TCMR) are scarce, and therapeutical strategies for CA‐TCMR have not been established. We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes and effects of treatment on pathological and clinical findings in patients with CA‐TCMR. Methods: This study comprised 37 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at our institute who were diagnosed with CA‐TCMR between January 2018 and December 2020. Patients were followed until October 2021. Results: A total of 32 of the 37 patients were treated. During the observation period, two patients died (5%), and five patients developed allograft loss (13%). A univariate Cox proportional hazards model showed that indication biopsy, higher spot urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and Banff ci/ct scores were risk factors for allograft loss. Of the treated patients, 23 underwent follow‐up biopsies. The Wilcoxon signed‐rank test showed significant improvement in the Baff scores for "ti", "i‐IFTA", "t" and "t‐IFTA" after treatment. On pathology, 13 (57%) of the patients who underwent follow‐up biopsy improved to "no evidence of rejection" or "borderline change." Assuming that improvement in pathology to "borderline change" or "no evidence of rejection" on follow‐up biopsy indicates response to treatment, multivariate logistic analysis showed that lower UPCR was a predictive factor for response to treatment. No specific effect of treatment type was observed. Conclusions: Our results indicate that treatment could improve the pathological findings in CA‐TCMR. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE: A total of 32 of the 37 patients with CA‐TCMR were treated. 13 (57%) of the 23 patients who underwent follow‐up biopsy after treatment improved to no evidence of rejection or borderline change on pathology. Lower UPCR was a predictive factor for response to treatment. No specific effect of treatment type was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We previously reported that the outcomes of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy are superior to those of hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy. Consequently, we introduced pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy in our hospital. Here, we compared perioperative outcomes between hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 315 living‐donor kidney transplantation procedures performed between October 2015 and December 2020 (213 involving hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, October 2015 to June 2019; 102 involving pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy, May 2019 to December 2020). After propensity score matching, 90 transplantations were included in each group (n = 180 overall). Results: Donors in the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy group had longer warm ischemia times (P <.001), lower serum C‐reactive protein concentrations and white blood cell counts on postoperative day 1 (P <.001 and P <.001, respectively), and shorter postoperative stays (P <.001) than donors in the hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group. Five (5.6%) modified Clavien‐classifiable complications occurred in the hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group; no complications occurred in the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy group (P = 0.008). One recipient in the hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group had donor‐related delayed graft function. There were no significant differences between groups in recipient estimated glomerular filtration on postoperative day 7. Conclusion: The introduction of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy was safe and effective. Moreover, it was less invasive and less harmful for donors, compared with hand‐assisted intra‐abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; recipient outcomes were equivalent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is associated with complications and adverse outcomes in patients with clinically resolved HBV infection who are seronegative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs Ag), and seropositive for hepatitis B core antibody (HBc Ab) and/or hepatitis B surface antibody (HBs Ab) before kidney transplantation (KT). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 52 patients with resolved HBV infection who were HBV‐DNA negative. HBV‐DNA after KT was evaluated, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation and outcomes were monitored. We defined HBV reactivation as seropositivity for HBV‐DNA at or above the minimal detection level of 1.0 log IU/mL and treated preemptively (using entecavir) when the HBV‐DNA level was at or above 1.3 log IU/mL, in accordance with the Japanese Guidelines for HBV treatment. Results: Among the 52 patients, the mean age was 57.2 ± 10.8 years. The median HBc Ab titer was 12.8 (interquartile range, 4.6‐42.6) cutoff index, and five (9.6%) cases of HBV reactivation occurred. No patients developed graft loss and died due to HBV reactivation. Statistical analysis showed that age and HBc Ab titer were significant risk factors for HBV reactivation (P =.037 and P =.042, respectively). No significant differences were found between graft survival and the presence or absence of HBV reactivation. Conclusion: These results suggest that HBc Ab titer and age could be significant risk factors for HBV reactivation. Resolution of HBV infection did not appear to be associated with patient or graft survival, regardless of whether HBV reactivation occurred, when following our preemptive strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]