4.6 Article

Old-for-old cadaveric renal transplantation: Surgical findings, perioperative complications and outcome

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 701-708

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00380-4

关键词

old donors; renal transplantation; surgical complications; donor pool; Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the surgical findings and outcome of locally allocated, blood-group-compatible but HLA-unmatched cadaveric kidneys in first renal transplantation of donor/recipient pairs aged 65 years and above (Eurotransplant Senior Program=ESP). Methods: 26 patients of the study group (donor age 70.4+/-3.6/recipient age 67.7+/-2.8) were compared to 30 controls aged 60 and above (mean recipient age 62.6+/-2.3/mean donor age 43.8+/-15.3). For controls kidney allocation included HLA matching. Results: Cold ischemic time (ESP vs. controls 501 vs. 883 min; p<0.05) and mean number of HLA mismatches (4.2 +/- 1.36 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.62; p<0.05) differed significantly. Delayed graft function was lower in the study group (12% vs. 43%; p<0.05), rejection episodes in the ESP group were numerous but did not differ significantly from the controls (46% vs. 30%; p=0.21). More intraoperative complications and a higher incidence of donor organ arteriosclerosis (p<0.05) were seen in the ESP group. Three-year graft survival uncensored and censored for death with functioning graft did not differ, even though mean creatinine and creatinine clearance differed significantly beginning at month three. Three-year patient survival (55% vs. 81%) differed in favour of the control group, even though the difference was not significant due to small number of patients. Conclusion: Old-for-old kidney transplantation with local allocation yields graft survival rates comparable to HLA-matched young grafts and is a good approach to extend the donor and recipient pool. Careful patient selection is advised, (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据