Use of organs from marginal donors for transplantation is a current strategy to expand the organ donor pool. Its efficacy is universally accepted among data from multicenter studies. Herein, we have reviewed outcomes of double kidney transplantation (DKT) over an 9-year experience in our center. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible important differences between a monocenter versus multicenter studies. Between 1999 and 2008, we performed 59 DKT. Recipient mean age was 63 +/- 5 years. Mean HLA-A, -B, and -DR mismatches were 3.69 +/- 0.922. Donor mean age was 69 +/- 7 years and mean creatinine clearance was 69.8 +/- 30.8 mL/min. Proteinuria was detected in three donors (5%). Mean cold ischemia and warm ischemia times were 1130 +/- 216 and 48 +/- 11 minutes, respectively. The right and left kidney scores were 4.18 +/- 2 and 4.21 +/- 2, respectively. Thirty patients (51%) displayed good postoperative renal function; 22 (37%), acute tubular necrosis with postoperative dialysis; 3 (5%), acute rejection episodes; 4 (7%), single-graft transplantectomy due to vascular thrombosis; 1 (2%), a retransplantation; 5 (8%), a lymphocele; 3 (5%) vescicoureteral reflux or stenosis requiring surgical correction. Cytomegalovirus infection was detected in five patients (8%). In three patients (5%) displayed de novo neoplasia. Three patients showed chronic rejection (5%), whereas we observed a cyclosporine-related toxicity in 7 (12%). Nine patients (15%) developed iatrogenic diabetes. Patient and graft survivals after 3 years from DKT were 93% and 86.3%, respectively. In this study, we applied successfully a widespread score to allocate organs to single kidney transplantation or DKT. In our experience, the score is suitable for the organ allocation but it may be overprotective, excluding potentially suitable organs for a single transplantation

Single-center experience in double kidney transplantation.

SANTORI, GREGORIO;VALENTE, UMBERTO
2010-01-01

Abstract

Use of organs from marginal donors for transplantation is a current strategy to expand the organ donor pool. Its efficacy is universally accepted among data from multicenter studies. Herein, we have reviewed outcomes of double kidney transplantation (DKT) over an 9-year experience in our center. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible important differences between a monocenter versus multicenter studies. Between 1999 and 2008, we performed 59 DKT. Recipient mean age was 63 +/- 5 years. Mean HLA-A, -B, and -DR mismatches were 3.69 +/- 0.922. Donor mean age was 69 +/- 7 years and mean creatinine clearance was 69.8 +/- 30.8 mL/min. Proteinuria was detected in three donors (5%). Mean cold ischemia and warm ischemia times were 1130 +/- 216 and 48 +/- 11 minutes, respectively. The right and left kidney scores were 4.18 +/- 2 and 4.21 +/- 2, respectively. Thirty patients (51%) displayed good postoperative renal function; 22 (37%), acute tubular necrosis with postoperative dialysis; 3 (5%), acute rejection episodes; 4 (7%), single-graft transplantectomy due to vascular thrombosis; 1 (2%), a retransplantation; 5 (8%), a lymphocele; 3 (5%) vescicoureteral reflux or stenosis requiring surgical correction. Cytomegalovirus infection was detected in five patients (8%). In three patients (5%) displayed de novo neoplasia. Three patients showed chronic rejection (5%), whereas we observed a cyclosporine-related toxicity in 7 (12%). Nine patients (15%) developed iatrogenic diabetes. Patient and graft survivals after 3 years from DKT were 93% and 86.3%, respectively. In this study, we applied successfully a widespread score to allocate organs to single kidney transplantation or DKT. In our experience, the score is suitable for the organ allocation but it may be overprotective, excluding potentially suitable organs for a single transplantation
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/266610
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact