J. Carvalho, P. Nunes, B. Parada, E. Tavares-da-Silva, H. Antunes, A. Roseiro, C. Ferreira, A. Figueiredo
{"title":"肾移植中的多肾动脉:现在是一个问题吗?","authors":"J. Carvalho, P. Nunes, B. Parada, E. Tavares-da-Silva, H. Antunes, A. Roseiro, C. Ferreira, A. Figueiredo","doi":"10.24915/aup.35.1-2.82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Shortage of high quality donors led to an increasing need of compatible organs: grafts with multiple renal arteries (MRA) are one of the solutions, although being a potential risk factor that can impair outcomes. The aim of this study is to provide a view of our experience with multiple renal arteries grafts in renal transplantation and compare the outcome between multiple renal arteries and single renal artery (SRA) groups. \nMaterial and Methods: A retrospective study of 2989 kidney transplants was performed in our department between January 1980 and February 2017: demographic characteristics and outcomes were compared between recipients of grafts with multiple renal arteries (648; 21.7%) and single renal artery (2341; 78.3%). Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 22: chi-square, independent sample t-test and Kaplan Meier tests were used with a p value of 0.05. \nResults: Grafts from cadaveric donors occurred in 95.8% of the single renal artery group and 97.4% of multiple renal arteries group. The recipients of multiple renal arteries group had a previous higher time on dialysis (50.3 ± 43.1 vs 46.30 ± 37.5 months, p:0.04), a longer operative time (2.43 ± 0.57 vs 2.28 ± 0.49 hours, p<0.001), a higher cold ischemia time (19h08 ± 6h05 vs 18h34 ± 6h17 hours, p:0.04) and more red blood cell transfusions (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.8 packs, p:0.01) than the recipients of single renal artery kidney recipients. In the multiple renal arteries group, ex-vivo bench surgery techniques, in vivo sequential anastomosis and mixed techniques were used. The different options did not affect the outcomes. The rate of delayed graft function, surgical complications, length of hospital stay, acute and chronic rejections, graft loss, death were not statistically different. The follow-up was not statistically different: multiple renal arteries (8 ± 7.3 years) versus single renal artery (7.7 ± 6.6 years) group (p:0.1). The current state of the patient was not dependent on the number of arteries used. \nConclusion: Multiple renal arteries grafts were not a problem in our unit: despite of having a longer operative time, higher cold ischemia time and higher blood transfusions rate, short and long-term outcomes were comparable between groups. At this level, literature results are not consensual: prospective studies are necessary.","PeriodicalId":100020,"journal":{"name":"Acta Urológica Portuguesa","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiple Renal Arteries in Kidney Transplantation: Is it a Problem Nowadays?\",\"authors\":\"J. Carvalho, P. Nunes, B. Parada, E. Tavares-da-Silva, H. Antunes, A. Roseiro, C. Ferreira, A. Figueiredo\",\"doi\":\"10.24915/aup.35.1-2.82\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Shortage of high quality donors led to an increasing need of compatible organs: grafts with multiple renal arteries (MRA) are one of the solutions, although being a potential risk factor that can impair outcomes. The aim of this study is to provide a view of our experience with multiple renal arteries grafts in renal transplantation and compare the outcome between multiple renal arteries and single renal artery (SRA) groups. \\nMaterial and Methods: A retrospective study of 2989 kidney transplants was performed in our department between January 1980 and February 2017: demographic characteristics and outcomes were compared between recipients of grafts with multiple renal arteries (648; 21.7%) and single renal artery (2341; 78.3%). Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 22: chi-square, independent sample t-test and Kaplan Meier tests were used with a p value of 0.05. \\nResults: Grafts from cadaveric donors occurred in 95.8% of the single renal artery group and 97.4% of multiple renal arteries group. The recipients of multiple renal arteries group had a previous higher time on dialysis (50.3 ± 43.1 vs 46.30 ± 37.5 months, p:0.04), a longer operative time (2.43 ± 0.57 vs 2.28 ± 0.49 hours, p<0.001), a higher cold ischemia time (19h08 ± 6h05 vs 18h34 ± 6h17 hours, p:0.04) and more red blood cell transfusions (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.8 packs, p:0.01) than the recipients of single renal artery kidney recipients. In the multiple renal arteries group, ex-vivo bench surgery techniques, in vivo sequential anastomosis and mixed techniques were used. The different options did not affect the outcomes. The rate of delayed graft function, surgical complications, length of hospital stay, acute and chronic rejections, graft loss, death were not statistically different. The follow-up was not statistically different: multiple renal arteries (8 ± 7.3 years) versus single renal artery (7.7 ± 6.6 years) group (p:0.1). The current state of the patient was not dependent on the number of arteries used. \\nConclusion: Multiple renal arteries grafts were not a problem in our unit: despite of having a longer operative time, higher cold ischemia time and higher blood transfusions rate, short and long-term outcomes were comparable between groups. At this level, literature results are not consensual: prospective studies are necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Urológica Portuguesa\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Urológica Portuguesa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.35.1-2.82\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Urológica Portuguesa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.35.1-2.82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
高质量供体的短缺导致对兼容器官的需求增加:多肾动脉移植(MRA)是解决方案之一,尽管它是一个潜在的危险因素,可以损害结果。本研究的目的是提供我们在肾移植中移植多肾动脉的经验,并比较多肾动脉组和单肾动脉组(SRA)的结果。材料和方法:回顾性研究了1980年1月至2017年2月在我科进行的2989例肾移植手术:比较了多肾动脉移植受者的人口统计学特征和结果(648例;21.7%)和单肾动脉(2341例;78.3%)。采用IBM SPSS Statistics 22进行统计学分析:采用卡方检验、独立样本t检验和Kaplan Meier检验,p值为0.05。结果:单肾动脉组和多肾动脉组分别有95.8%和97.4%的尸体供体移植。多肾动脉组既往透析时间(50.3±43.1 vs 46.30±37.5个月,p:0.04)、手术时间(2.43±0.57 vs 2.28±0.49小时,p<0.001)、冷缺血时间(19h08±6h05 vs 18h34±6h17小时,p:0.04)、红细胞输注量(1.8±0.8 vs 1.7±0.8包,p:0.01)均高于单肾动脉组。多肾动脉组采用离体平台手术技术、体内序贯吻合技术和混合吻合技术。不同的选择对结果没有影响。移植器官功能延迟率、手术并发症、住院时间、急性和慢性排斥反应、移植器官丢失、死亡率无统计学差异。随访无统计学差异:多肾动脉组(8±7.3年)与单肾动脉组(7.7±6.6年)(p:0.1)。患者的当前状态并不取决于所使用的动脉数量。结论:多肾动脉移植在我单位不是问题,尽管手术时间较长,冷缺血时间较长,输血率较高,但组间短期和长期结果具有可比性。在这个层面上,文献结果不是共识性的:前瞻性研究是必要的。
Multiple Renal Arteries in Kidney Transplantation: Is it a Problem Nowadays?
Introduction: Shortage of high quality donors led to an increasing need of compatible organs: grafts with multiple renal arteries (MRA) are one of the solutions, although being a potential risk factor that can impair outcomes. The aim of this study is to provide a view of our experience with multiple renal arteries grafts in renal transplantation and compare the outcome between multiple renal arteries and single renal artery (SRA) groups.
Material and Methods: A retrospective study of 2989 kidney transplants was performed in our department between January 1980 and February 2017: demographic characteristics and outcomes were compared between recipients of grafts with multiple renal arteries (648; 21.7%) and single renal artery (2341; 78.3%). Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 22: chi-square, independent sample t-test and Kaplan Meier tests were used with a p value of 0.05.
Results: Grafts from cadaveric donors occurred in 95.8% of the single renal artery group and 97.4% of multiple renal arteries group. The recipients of multiple renal arteries group had a previous higher time on dialysis (50.3 ± 43.1 vs 46.30 ± 37.5 months, p:0.04), a longer operative time (2.43 ± 0.57 vs 2.28 ± 0.49 hours, p<0.001), a higher cold ischemia time (19h08 ± 6h05 vs 18h34 ± 6h17 hours, p:0.04) and more red blood cell transfusions (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.8 packs, p:0.01) than the recipients of single renal artery kidney recipients. In the multiple renal arteries group, ex-vivo bench surgery techniques, in vivo sequential anastomosis and mixed techniques were used. The different options did not affect the outcomes. The rate of delayed graft function, surgical complications, length of hospital stay, acute and chronic rejections, graft loss, death were not statistically different. The follow-up was not statistically different: multiple renal arteries (8 ± 7.3 years) versus single renal artery (7.7 ± 6.6 years) group (p:0.1). The current state of the patient was not dependent on the number of arteries used.
Conclusion: Multiple renal arteries grafts were not a problem in our unit: despite of having a longer operative time, higher cold ischemia time and higher blood transfusions rate, short and long-term outcomes were comparable between groups. At this level, literature results are not consensual: prospective studies are necessary.