Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on July 4, 2006
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2006 21(10):2908-2915; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl338
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/10/2908    most recent
gfl338v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hernández, D.
Right arrow Articles by Torres, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hernández, D.
Right arrow Articles by Torres, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Retrospective analysis of surgical complications following cadaveric kidney transplantation in the modern transplant era

Domingo Hernández1,3,, Margarita Rufino1,3, Silvia Armas1, Ana González1, Pedro Gutiérrez2,3, Pablo Barbero1, Sofía Vivancos2, Concepción Rodríguez1, José Rodríguez de Vera2 and Armando Torres1,3

1Department of Nephrology 2Department of Urology, Research Unit, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Instituto Reina Sofía de Investigación and 3University of La Laguna, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Domingo Hernández, MD, Service of Nephrology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, E-38208, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. Email: dhmarrero{at}hotmail.com



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Background. Risk factors for surgical complications (SCs) following kidney transplantation in the modern transplant era need to be identified to perform appropriate prophylactic interventions.

Methods. Records from 870 consecutive adult cadaveric kidney transplants done at a single centre were reviewed. SCs were classified into four groups: (i) vascular (12%, thrombosis or stenosis); (ii) haemorrhagic (12%); (iii) ureteral (7.5%, leaks and stenosis) and (iv) wound (16%, lymphocoeles or dehiscences).

Results. One or more SCs occurred in 299 (34%) patients, with multiple SCs in 65 (7.4%). By logistic regression analysis, recipient vessel atherosclerosis and delayed graft function (DGF) were significantly associated with both thrombotic complications [odds ratio (OR) 4, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4–11, P = 0.010 and OR 3.8, 1.3–12, P < 0.00001, respectively] and graft artery stenosis (OR 2.9, 1.2–6.8, P = 0.015 and OR 5.6, 2.3–13.4, P < 0.0001, respectively). Acute rejection increased the risk of graft artery or ureteral stenosis by 2.5 (CI 1.02–6.4, P = 0.045) and 3.3 (CI 1.1–10, P = 0.034), respectively. Older recipients were related to urinary leak (OR 1.04, CI 1.01–1.07, P = 0.011). Difficult bench surgery, DGF and the use of antiplatelet drugs increased the risk of bleeding by 3.6 (CI 1.9–6.4, P < 0.0001), 2.7 (CI 1.5–4.7, P < 0.0001) and 1.8 (CI 1.03–3.29, P = 0.038), respectively. Each month on dialysis increased the risk by 1.02 (CI 1.01–1.03, P = 0.002). Sirolimus increased the risk for wound SCs by 4.1 (CI 2.1–8.3, P < 0.0001) and obesity, retransplant and acute rejection were additional risk factors.

Conclusions. Adult renal transplant recipients at risk for SCs can be identified by age, DGF, graft vessel and recipient atheromatosis, difficult bench surgery, obesity, rejection and the use of antiplatelet drugs and rapamycin.

Keywords: immunosuppression; kidney transplantation; surgical complications



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Despite improvements in surgical and diagnostic techniques, surgical complications (SCs) following kidney transplantation remain an important clinical problem that may increase morbidity, hospitalization and costs [1]. Depending on the stage of the transplant process these complications may have an origin in back-table work to prepare the allograft, the dissection of the renal bed and vascular anastomosis or in the restoration of the continuity of the urinary tract. However, SCs do not necessarily imply a surgical procedure-related technical problem. Several risk factors such as older donor and recipients with atheromatosis and obesity are increasingly observed among kidney transplant candidates [2]. This may lead to both vascular thrombotic events and ureteral complications after surgery. Moreover, potential kidney recipients have unfavourable cardiovascular profiles and, frequently, they have to be treated with antiplatelet agents which may predispose to perioperative bleeding complications.

On the other hand, newer and more potent immunosuppressive drugs, such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and sirolimus (SRL) have contributed to decrease the acute rejection rate and improve kidney graft function. However, recent reports show a strong association between these agents and increased incidence of wound complications and lymphocoele formation [3–5]. Thus, it is plausible that an additive effect between these newer agents and risk factors related either to donor or recipient characteristics may magnify the development of SCs in this population.

Retrospective studies have reported the incidence and risk factors for a particular SC in adult renal-transplant recipients, but most of them do not provide complete information for global perioperative troublesome complications [3–10]. In addition, not all studies have included the newer immunosuppressants in their analysis [6–10], which may underestimate the incidence of SCs in this population. Therefore, an analysis of all SCs in the modern transplant era, including newer immunosuppressive agents, would be desirable to ascertain multiple risk factors with the ultimate goal of applying preventive measures which reduce the incidence of SCs.

The purpose of this study was to document a retrospective analysis of early SCs following adult cadaveric kidney transplants in order to assess the overall incidence of these complications and to identify multiple risk factors related to donor and recipient characteristics in the modern transplant era.



   Subjects and methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Study population
We conducted a retrospective cohort study with 870 consecutive Caucasian patients (18–76 years old) who received a cadaveric kidney between January 1996 and December 2004 in a regional transplant centre (Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Spain). This period was relatively homogeneous in terms of general clinical management following kidney transplantation.

Grafts were flushed with cold University of Wisconsin solution and preserved in cold solution until the transplants. All transplants were performed by one of four senior surgeons sufficiently trained for kidney transplantation. Assistant surgical support was provided by a second attendant. The four senior surgeons involved have a wide range of experience and have worked in this transplant programme since 1981. All of them used standard surgical techniques for transplantation. Briefly, kidneys were placed in either the right or the left iliac fossa using an extra-peritoneal approach. The renal graft vessels were anastomosed end-to-side to the recipient external or common iliac vessels. Multiple arteries in the graft were anastomosed individually or to each other before being sewn to the recipient vessels. Fine sutures of prolene (5/0 or 6/0) were used for vascular anastomoses. Vascular bench surgery before transplantation was performed when vascular abnormalities, multiple arteries or harvesting injury were present using finer sutures of prolene (7/0 or 8/0). A standard Lich–Gregoir ureteroneocystostomy was performed in all cases. Thereafter, a double-J stent (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, NY) was systematically inserted and removed 2 weeks later. All recipients were given prophylactic broad-spectrum parenteral antibiotics in the operating room at the time of transplant. Proper hydration was provided to all patients during the perioperative period. There was no routine use of post-operative anti-coagulation therapy unless clearly, medically or surgically indicated.

After surgery, the patients were monitored clinically and biochemically. In addition, all patients underwent a color Doppler flow study within the first 24 h. Immediate haemorrhagic complications were clinically detected in the first hours after surgery and, consequently, treated as an emergency. After this period, when cases of vascular or haemorrhagic complications were suspected computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or angiography study were performed to confirm the diagnosis. Thereafter, additional SCs (including ureteral and wound SCs) during follow-up were diagnosed by means of echography, isotope scanning, angiography and antegrade pyelography as appropriate.

Data collection
Demographic and clinical data were collected at the time of transplantation and during hospitalization until discharge, by chart review. The parameters evaluated in this study were:

  1. Donor variables: age, gender, cause of death (cerebral vascular or not), serum creatinine before harvesting and atherosclerosis of graft vessels.
  2. Recipient characteristics: age, gender, cause of kidney failure, dialysis modality, time on dialysis, previous transplants, the human leukocyte antigens (HLA) mismatches, maximal pre-transplant anti-lymphocytic antibodies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) status, dyslipidaemia, pre-transplant cardiovascular disease (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, stroke and peripheral artery disease) defined by standard criteria [11], obesity [body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2], use of pre-transplant antiplatelet drugs and hypertension (blood pressure > 140/90 mmHg or need for anti-hypertensive therapy) and atherosclerosis of the vessels. The recipient was considered atherosclerotic when either vascular calcifications or atherosclerotic lesions of the iliac–femoral axis during surgery were present.
  3. Perioperative factors: left or right kidney, graft anatomy (number of arteries and veins), difficult bench surgery (presence of vascular abnormalities or major vascular injury requiring repair), graft biopsy, cold ischaemia time and graft revascularization time.
  4. Post-transplant factors: Presence of delayed graft function (DGF), defined as the need for dialysis in the first week after surgery and/or failure of creatinine clearance to rise above 10 ml/min within the first 5 post-operative days irrespective of dialysis need, acute rejection, and serum creatinine and immunosuppressants at discharge. The diagnosis of DGF was confirmed in all cases by ultrasound, isotope scanning and/or graft biopsy.

Finally, we identified all recipients with a documented SC during the first 3 months after surgery. This included analysis of patients with prolonged stays after kidney transplantation and re-admissions.

Immunosuppression
The provided immunosuppressive treatment was similar in all patients and consisted of prednisone plus anti-lymphocytic antibodies followed by calcineurin inhibitor drugs (microemulsion Neoral or tacrolimus) and MMF (before 1997, azathioprine) or SRL. Anti-T-cell induction therapy was administered in most patients. This therapy was usually given for the first 7 days and included either anti-thymocyte globulin at 1 mg/kg/day (Thymoglobulin, Genzyme Corporation, Boston, MA), basiliximab at 20 mg on days 0 and 4 (Simulect, Novartis, Inc., Basel, Switzerland) or daclizumab at 1 mg/kg on day 0 and all 14 days at four doses (Zenapax, Hoffman-La-Roche, Nutley, NJ, USA). The Neoral microemulsion (Novartis, Inc., Basel, Switzerland) was orally administred at 4 mg/kg per day in divided doses, to keep C0 levels between 125 and 175 ng/ml. According to our local immunosuppression policy, re-transplants, patients with high immunological risk or known intolerance to Neoral received tacrolimus instead of Neoral microemulsion. Tacrolimus (Prograf, Fujisawa Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, USA) was started at 0.1 mg/kg per day to maintain levels between 6 and 8 ng/ml. MMF (Cellcept, Hoffman La-Roche, Nutley, NJ, USA) was begun on the first post-operative day, 1 g twice a day, and remained at that dose the first year unless side effects warranted dose reduction. SRL (Rapamune, Wyeth, Radnor, PA, USA) was administered after May 2000 to avoid calcineurin inhibitor agents in the case of a marginal donor. SRL was started with 12 mg oral loading dose followed by 3 mg daily to achieve plasma levels between 8 and 10 ng/ml, and dosage reductions and levels below 8 ng/ml were targeted if cytopaenia or other toxicities unrelated to wound healing were observed. Finally, intravenous methylprednisolone at a dose of 250 mg was given on day 0. Thereafter, 20 mg/day doses were systematically tapered to a maintenance dose of 0.1 mg/kg/day at 1 year. Acute rejection episodes were initially treated with three boluses of 500 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone. Resistant episodes were treated with a 7-day course of OKT3 (5 mg/day) (Muromonab CD3; Ortho Pharmaceutical, Raritan, NJ, USA).

Between 1996 and 1997, recipients received high-dose oral acyclovir (800–3200 mg/day, adjusted according to renal function) after i.v. ganciclovir as anti-CMV prophylaxis. After 1997, oral ganciclovir after i.v. ganciclovir was used in patients whose donor was seropositive, with the dose adjusted for renal function.

Classification and definitions
Group I: vascular complications
These included vascular thrombosis and renal artery stenosis, including significant kinking of the artery during graft placement. Primary renal allograft thrombosis whether arterial, venous or both, was identified as the cause of transplant failure only if the result of the graft's histopathology had excluded any sign of rejection. Likewise, pre-operative hypercoagulable states were ruled out. Anastomotic or post-anastomotic renal artery stenosis was defined as a narrowing of the graft artery. Early scintigraphy or angiography were systematically performed when vascular complications were suspected. When the diagnosis was doubtful, surgical exploration was performed. The renal allograft was removed as soon as non-correctable vascular occlusion was identified.

Group II: haemorrhagic complications
Post-operative bleeding complication was defined as any haematoma related to the surgical transplant procedure that needed re-intervention, aspiration or blood transfusions.

Group III: ureteral complications
These included urinary leaks and ureteral obstruction (due to either kinking of the ureteral anastomosis or stenosis). The urinary leak was defined as the exteriorization of urine through the drainage system or by the appearance of a liquid collection on ultrasound documented by aspiration and biochemical analysis. Antegrade pyelography was systematically performed to confirm the diagnosis and to allow the placement of a decompression nephrostomy tube. Additionally, retrograde cystography was systematically performed to check the bladder and to rule out a possible vesical fistula.

Group IV: surgical wound complications
It included impaired wound healing, lymphocoele, dehiscence or incisional hernia, that needed repeated aspiration and drainage, ethanol sclerosis or surgical repair. A collection was designated as lymphocoele if the cell counts from direct aspirates proved lymphatic content.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of the Canary Islands, and was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. Medical record review was performed according to Spanish law with reference to clinical data confidentiality protection.

Statistical analysis
Both univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess the significance of multiple risk factors for SCs following kidney transplantation. In particular, univariate assessment of categorical variables was analysed using the chi-square test, and when applicable, the Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables were analysed parametrically using the Student's t-test. Candidate variables, including the surgeon effect (identified when two-tailed P was <0.15), were then included in a stepwise logistic regression model. In the final analysis, risk factors for SCs with a two-tailed P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results are reported as means ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 12.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).



   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Table 1 displays descriptive statistical data of the donors and recipients. One or more SCs occurred in 299 of the 870 transplants (34%) with multiple SCs in 65 (7.4%). Re-intervention was required in 126 (14.5%) and 37 grafts (4.3%) were lost by major SCs (vascular or haemorrhagic complications). A longer hospitalization was observed in patients who had a SC, because most of them occurred during the admission (29 ± 22 vs 18 ± 13 days, P < 0.0001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Clinical data of donors and recipients

 
Group I
Overall there were 87 vascular complications in 83 patients, an incidence of 10%. Renal artery thrombosis and vein thrombosis developed in 26 (3%) and 16 (1.8%) patients, respectively. In addition, renal artery stenosis (including significant kinking or torsion of the graft artery) occurred in 45 cases (5%). Univariate and multivariate analysis of risk factors for vascular complications are summarized in Table 2. Recipient vessel atherosclerosis and DGF were related to both thrombotic complications (artery or vein thrombosis) and renal transplant artery stenosis. Additionally, acute rejection and atherosclerosis of graft vessels were significantly associated with renal artery stenosis (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Risk factors for vascular complications following kidney transplantation

 
Group II
Haemorrhagic complications occurred within the first 48 h after surgery in 128 patients (14.7%) and many of them underwent re-intervention (44%). The risk of bleeding increased almost 4-fold when difficult bench surgery was performed. Patients with DGF were more than twice as likely to have a bleeding complication. Each additional month on dialysis increased the risk by 2%, and the use of antiplatelet drug, pre-transplant, almost doubled the risk for haemorrhagic complications after surgery (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Risk factors for bleeding complications after renal transplantation

 
Group III
A total of 75 ureteral complications were reported in 67 patients, (8.7%) (Table 4). In particular, distal urinary leak occurred in 38 (4.4%) and distal ureteral obstruction in 37 (4.3%) patients, requiring prolongation of stay or re-admission in the majority of the cases. For each additional year of recipient age at transplantation, the risk increased by 4%. Likewise, a longer time on dialysis was also associated with urinary leak. Interestingly, patients with acute rejection were more than three times as likely to have ureteral stenosis. Conversely, a shorter revascularization time was related to lower risk for these complications due likely to an easier surgical procedure.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Risk factors for ureteral complications after kidney transplantation

 
Group IV
Surgical wound complications were observed in 92 patients (10.5%), including isolated lymphocoeles in 51 (6%). Major wound-healing problems requiring additional surgical repair occurred in 23 (28%) patients. The most significant risk factor for these complications was the use of rapamycin, which increased the risk 4-fold for this complication. Other immunosupressants were not related to these complications. Other important risk factors were re-transplant, obesity and the presence of acute rejection (Table 5).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Risk factors for surgical wound complications in 870 patients following renal transplantation

 
Finally, no SC-related deaths occurred and there was graft loss in 35 and 20% of groups I and II, respectively. As a consequence, the 1-year and 5-year graft survival rate for those with SCs was 75 and 62% compared with 93 and 78% for the remainder of our transplant populations, respectively (log rank test: 29.2, P < 0.0001).



   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
Acknowledgements
 References
 
This retrospective analysis shows that overall the incidence of SCs in adult kidney transplants is higher than that reported previously [1], which may reflect significant changes in donor organ harvesting and recipient characteristics in the modern transplant era. Otherwise, this difference may also be explained by ascertainment biases. Indeed, many studies do not provide complete information about potential risk factors for global SCs during different stages of the transplant process [3–10]. Moreover, not all reports have included the newer immunosupressant agents in their analysis [6–10]. Thus, the true incidence for overall SCs following kidney transplantation might have been underestimated.

We collected detailed information from medical records throughout the whole transplant process. Consequently, we identified multiple intertwined risk factors for SCs from donor and recipient characteristics as well as the perioperative period and from newer immunosuppressants such as rapamycin. For example, one-third of our cases had either graft or recipient vessel atheromatosis or multiple arteries. Difficult bench surgery was needed in 20%; the use of antiplatelet drugs pre-transplantation was documented in 37% of the patients, and more than half received anti-proliferative immunosuppresants. Thus, an additive effect between multiple risk factors and immunosuppression for developing SCs, appears likely. The surgeons themselves are one of the most important risk factors for any SC, but we did not find an association between this factor and SC in the univariate and multivariate analysis (data not shown). Finally, we classified SCs in different categories and analysed SC risk in each group individually, which may help to clarify the pathogenesis in each one. Taken together, these factors could well explain an ongoing increase in the incidence of SCs following cadaveric kidney transplantation as observed in our study.

Renal allograft vascular thrombosis is a serious complication following kidney transplantation that ultimately leads to graft loss. The incidence of thrombotic complications (arterial or venous) in our study was 4.8%, which is within the range previously reported (0.5–6%). In cadaveric transplantation, many risk factors have been associated with thrombotic sequelae [7,9,12]. We did not find a relationship with other known causes of this complication such as, severe rejection, difficult vascular bench surgery, pro-coagulant immunosuppressants, multiple arteries or cold ischaemia, among others. In addition, we did not include paediatric recipients nor patients with pre-transplant hypercoagulability state. Atherosclerosis has been also suggested as one of the risk factors for vascular complications [13]. In the current study, graft and recipient vessel atheromatosis were important contributing factors for developing both vascular thrombosis and renal transplant artery stenosis. This latter complication occurred in 5% of our series, similar to the previous studies [1,14]. Besides atherosclerosis, several risk factors for renal artery stenosis have been suggested in both cadaveric and live donor transplantation, including acute rejection [14,15]. Accordingly, a relationship between immunological dysfunction and this complication was also observed in this study. Although merely speculative, inflammation of the endothelium may lead to intimal hyperplasia and narrowing of the vascular lumen as has been previously suggested [15]. In favour of this view, the majority of the stenoses in our study were found distal to the surgical anastomosis.

An interesting finding in this study was the significant association of vascular complications––thrombosis and graft artery stenosis––with DGF. A similar relationship has been previously established in both paediatric and adult kidney recipients [9,16]. The reasons for this finding are not clear. Our definition of DGF was sufficiently precise and Doppler ultrasound performed within the first post-operative 24 h could verify graft vascular flow in all cases. Whether vascular complications, in particular thrombotic events, may be the result of haemodynamic instability, inflammatory response or interstitial oedema attributed to severe acute tubular necrosis remain undetermined. Alternatively, DGF may be a consequence rather than the cause of these SCs. Meanwhile, when allografts are suffering from early DGF an effort should always be made to rule out vascular causes especially in the presence of other risk factors.

Although we did not use routine prophylactic heparinization after surgery, the incidence of haemorrhagic complications, including collections that only needed aspiration or transfusion, was 14.7%. The pathogenesis of bleeding after kidney transplantation has been poorly studied in the literature. Although an association between multiple renal arteries and post-operative haemorrhage has been previously documented [7], this has not been confirmed by others. However, it is plausible that a laborious bench surgery performed in the presence of vascular injuries or multiple renal arteries may be a risk factor for bleeding, as observed in our study. Moreover, a haemorrhagic tendency is present in both acute and chronic renal failure, due primarily to impaired platelet function. Thus, one possible explanation is that DGF may predispose to bleeding after surgery, especially when other risk factors, such as complicated bench surgery or the use of antiplatelet drugs, concur. The fact that a longer time on dialysis was a significant risk factor for haemorrhagic complications in our patients supports this argument.

Despite the systematic use of a double-J stent, ureteral complications occurred in 8.7% of our recipients. This incidence coincides with previous reports for both ureteral leak and ureteral obstruction (2–10%) [1,17]. Blood clots and extrinsic compression due to lymphocoele were ruled out. Most urinary leaks were noted after stent removal (2 weeks). The length of time post-transplant for which an ureteral stent should be removed is unclear. A similar proportion of urological complications has been reported after different post-transplant timing of stent removal [17]. Therefore, whether a more prolonged use of a ureteral stent may prevent these complications is undetermined. We identified several risk factors for these complications such as older recipients, a longer time on dialysis and acute rejection. Ischaemia is the most common cause of ureteral complications [18]. In addition, immunological dysfunction and high-dose steroid use are strong risk factors for these urological disorders [19]. Thus, a more compromised vascularization in the distal ureter may lead to a higher incidence of these complications in elderly patients, especially in those on long-term dialysis or with acute rejection. Whether other anti-proliferative immunosuppressants may participate in the pathogenesis of these complications is unclear. Further studies are needed to clarify these issues.

Wound complications are now probably the most common type of post-transplant complications. Important risk factors for these SCs include older recipients, obesity, re-operation and the use of anti-proliferative immunosuppressants [3–5,8]. Although all immunosuppressive agents inhibit wound healing, SRL has a unique anti-proliferative and anti-mitotic action by inhibiting growth factor-induced proliferation of several cell types, including fibroblasts [20]. Thus, SRL may lead to either impaired wound healing or failure to seal perivascular lymphatic channels after kidney transplantation. Accordingly, the incidence of these complications in our study was 10.5% and the risk factors we identified were not surprising. The use of SRL was the most significant risk factor by multivariate analysis and no other immunosupressants were associated with these SCs. Overdosing of SRL did not seem to be a factor for a higher surgical complication rate in our series, because early SRL levels were well within the therapeutic range (data not shown). In our current clinical practice, we used SRL when marginal donors were transplanted in an older recipient. Although our results cannot be necessarily extrapolated to other renal recipients, it may be clinically relevant, as recipients with a high risk for wound complications (e.g. those who are older, obese, re-transplants or with a high immunological risk) could be treated with an immunosuppressive regimen that avoids this agent. Whether delayed introduction of SRL minimizes these SCs is undetermined. Therefore, future lower-risk induction strategies should be tested in this population.

Although no direct mortality was attributable to global SCs, a significant decrease in graft survival was observed for both vascular and haemorrhagic complications, as previously reported [7]. In any case, other SCs may cause significant morbidity and may lead to prolonged hospitalization, re-interventions and high cost as seen in our study. Obviously, all these factors must stimulate targeting prophylactic interventions in kidney recipients.

This is a retrospective study which constitutes an important limitation. However, we obtained complete information from our database, which is updated yearly and used a proper model regression to minimize biases inherent to this type of analysis. Second, this approach may differ in the setting of live donor transplantation or paediatric kidney transplant which could be another limitation of this study.

Under this retrospective analysis, several promising approaches could prevent SC after adult kidney transplants. They may include the following: (i) to perform a more meticulous surgical procedure and vascular bench surgery in atherosclerotic patients who receive anti-platelet drugs or when atherosclerotic graft vessels are present, so that vascular and haemorrhagic complications could be minimized; (ii) adequate perioperative management in order to reduce DGF, haemodynamic instability and acute rejection and (iii) to individualize immunosuppression with SRL, avoiding or delaying its use in obese and older recipients. In any case, whether these merging manoeuvres reduce SCs following kidney transplantation deserves future clinical trials.



   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
References
 
The authors thank Antonio Rodríguez and Carmen Abad for their work in data collection. The authors also thank the Renal Transplant team from the Canary Islands for their collaboration. This study was supported by grant (FIS 02/1350 and C03/03) from Spanish Ministry of Health and grant (PI2003/008) from Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deportes del Gobierno de Canarias.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Humar A and Matas AJ. (2005) Surgical complications after kidney transplantation. Semin Dial 18:505–510.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Hernández D, Rufino M, Bartolomei S, et al. (2005) Clinical impact of preexisting vascular calcifications on mortality after renal transplantation. Kidney Int 67:2015–2020.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Flechner SM, Zhou L, Derweesh I, et al. (2003) The impact of sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and steroids on wound healing in 513 kidney-transplant recipients. Transplantation 76:1729–1734.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Valente JF, Hricik D, Weigel K, et al. (2003) Comparison of sirolimus vs. mycophenolate mofetil on surgical complications and wound healing in adult kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 3:1128–1134.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Goel M, Flechner SM, Zhou L, et al. (2004) The influence of various maintenance immunosuppressive drugs on lymphocele formation and treatment after kidney transplantation. J Urol 171:1788–1792.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Shoskes DA, Hanbury D, Cranston D, Morris PJ. (1995) Urological complications in 1,000 consecutive renal transplant recipients. J Urol 153:18–21.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Osman Y, Shokeir A, Ali-el-Dein B, et al. (2003) Vascular complications after live donor renal transplantation: study of risk factors and effects on graft and patient survival. J Urol 169:859–862.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Humar A, Ramcharan T, Denny R, et al. (2001) Are wound complications after a kidney transplant more common with modern immunosuppression? Transplantation 72:1920–1923.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Bakir N, Sluiter WJ, Ploeg RJ, et al. (1996) Primary renal graft thrombosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 11:140–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Englesbe MJ, Punch JD, Armstrong DR, et al. (2004) Single-center study of technical graft loss in 714 consecutive renal transplants. Transplantation 78:623–626.[Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Hernández D, Rufino M, Bartolomei S, et al. (2005) A novel prognostic index for mortality in renal transplant recipients after hospitalization. Transplantation 79:337–343.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Shokeir AA, Osman Y, Ali-El-Dein B, et al. (2005) Surgical complications in live-donor pediatric and adolescent renal transplantation: study of risk factors. Pediatr Transplant 9:33–38.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Galazka Z, Szmidt J, Nazarewski S, et al. (2002) Long-term results of kidney transplantation in recipients with atherosclerotic iliac arteries. Transplant Proc 34:604–605.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Buturovic-Ponikvar J. (2003) Renal transplant artery stenosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 18 [Suppl 5]:S74–S77.
  15. Wong W, Fynn SP, Higgins RM, et al. (1996) Transplant renal artery stenosis in 77 patients–does it have an immunological cause? Transplantation 61:215–219.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Singh A, Stablein D, Tejani A. (1997) Risk factors for vascular thrombosis in pediatric renal transplantation: a special report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study. Transplantation 63:1263–1267.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Mangus RS and Haag BW. (2004) Stented versus nonstented extravesical ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation: a metaanalysis. Am J Transplant 4:1889–1896.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Karam G, Maillet F, Parant S, et al. (2004) Ureteral necrosis after kidney transplantation: risk factors and impact on graft and patient survival. Transplantation 78:725–729.[Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Maier U, Madersbacher S, Banyai-Falger S, et al. (1997) Late ureteral obstruction after kidney transplantation. Fibrotic answer to previous rejection? Transpl Int 10:65–68.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Sehgal SN. (1998) Rapamune (RAPA, rapamycin, sirolimus): mechanism of action immunosuppressive effect results from blockade of signal transduction and inhibition of cell cycle progression. Clin Biochem 31:335–340.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Received for publication: 9.12.05
Accepted in revised form: 15. 5.06


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
W. Bentas, J. Jones, A. Karaoguz, U. Tilp, M. Probst, E. Scheuermann, I. A. Hauser, D. Jonas, and J. Gossmann
Renal transplantation in the elderly: surgical complications and outcome with special emphasis on the Eurotransplant Senior Programme
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 2043 - 2051.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. Gutierrez, D. Marrero, D. Hernandez, S. Vivancos, L. Perez-Tamajon, J. M. Rodriguez de Vera, A. Alarco, and J. M. Gonzalez-Posada
Surgical complications and renal function after kidney alone or simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation: a matched comparative study
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1451 - 1455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/10/2908    most recent
gfl338v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hernández, D.
Right arrow Articles by Torres, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hernández, D.
Right arrow Articles by Torres, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?