Retrospective analysis of patients with kidney transplantation

Year 2019, , 88 - 91, 01.07.2019

Gokhan Ertugrul

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.530669

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to provide a retrospective
evaluation of our kidney transplantation cases.

Material and methods: Demographic characteristics,
cadaver and live donor use numbers, kinship status, hospital stay, postoperative
morbidity, graft loss and mortality rates were determined.

Results: The mean age of the patients was
37.6 ± 16.2 ( 3 - 67) years, 61.7% were male and 38.3% were female. Ninety-seven
percent of our patients underwent living donor kidney transplantation. The
average length of stay in hospital was 11 days. Eight point three percent of
the patients had rejection and the rate of graft loss was 3.3 %. Mortality rate
was 4.2 %.

Conclusion:
The most effective treatment for end-stage renal failure patients is
renal transplantation. The main goal in terms of patient health and comfort
should be to increase the number of kidney transplants.

Keywords

End-stage renal failure, Kidney transplantation, Analysis

Böbrek nakli yapılan hastaların retrospektif analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile merkezimiz de yapılan böbrek nakli olgularımızı
retrospektif olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Hastaların demografik özellikleri, kadavra ve canlı donör kullanım
sayıları, akrabalık durumları, hastanede yatış süreleri, postoperatif morbidite,
greft kaybı ve mortalite oranları belirlendi.

Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 37.6 ± 16.2
(3 - 67) idi, % 61.7’ si erkek ve  % 38.3’ü
kadındı. Hastalarımızın % 91.7’ sine canlı vericiden böbrek nakli yapıldı.  Ortalama
yatıs süresi 11 gündü. Hastaların  %
8.3’ünde  rejeksiyon görüldü ve greft
kaybı oranı % 3.3 idi. Mortalite oranı % 4.2 idi.

Sonuç: Son dönem böbrek yetmezliği
nedeniyle takip edilen hastalar için en etkin tedavi yöntemi böbrek naklidir.
Hasta sağlığı ve konforu açısından esas amaç böbrek nakli sayılarının arttırılması
olmalıdır.

Keywords

Son dönem böbrek yetmezliği, böbrek nakli, analiz

References

• 1.Johnson RJ. Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology. Mosby,2000.
• 2.Dogukan A, Tokgöz B, Oymak O, Taşkapan H, Sözüer E, Yılmaz Z ve ark. Böbrek transplantasyonu uygulanan olgular: 5 yıllık sonuçların analizi. Erciyes Tıp Derg 2003;25:86-91.
• 3.Sen S, Özkahya M, Hosçoskun C , Başdemir G. Sıfır saat biyopsilerde saptanan morfolojik bulgular ve erken dönemde greft fonksiyonuna etkisi. Türk Nefrol Diyaliz Transplant Derg 2000;1:30-36.
• 4.Ersoy FF. Son Dönem Böbrek Yetmezliğinde Uygun Diyaliz Yönteminin Seçimi. Turkiye Klinikleri J Int Med Sci 2005;1(21):88-92.
• 5. Abecassis M, Bartlett ST, Collins AJ, Davis CL, Delmonico FL, Friedewald JJ et al. Kidneytransplantation as primary therapy for end-stage renal disease: a National Kidney Foundation/Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF/KDOQITM) conference. Clin J Am SocNephrol. 2008;3(2):471-480.
• 6. Meier-Kriesche HU, Kaplan B. Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: a paired donorkidney analysis.Transplantation. 2002;74(10):1377-1381.
• 7.Yihung Huang , Millie Samaniego. Preemptive kidney transplantation: Has it come of age? Nephrologie & Therapeutique 8 (2012) 428–432
• 8. Knoll G, Cockfield S, Blydt-Hansen T, Baran D, Kiberd B, Landsberg D, et al. Canadian Society of transplantation consensus guidelines on eligibility for kidney transplantation. CMAJ 2005;173(10):1181–4.
• 9.Mange KC, Joffe MM, Feldman HI. Effect of the use or nonuse of long-term dialysis on the subsequent survival of renal transplants from living donors. N Engl J Med 2001;344(10):726–31.
• 10.Mange KC, Joffe MM, Feldman HI. Dialysis prior to living donor kidney transplantation and rates of acute rejection. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18(1):172–7.)
• 11.Mange KC, Weir MR. Preemptive renal transplantation: why not? Am JTransplant 2003;3(11):1336–40.
• 12. Papalois VE, Moss A, Gillingham KJ, Sutherland DE, Matas AJ, Humar A, et al. Preemptive transplants for patients with renal failure: an argument against waiting until dialysis. Transplantation 2000;70(4):625–31.
• 13. Witczak BJ, Leivestad T, Line PD, Holdaas H, Reisaeter AV, Jenssen TG, et al. Experience from an active preemptive kidney transplantation program–809 cases revisited. Transplantation 2009;88(5):672–7.
• 14.Ramos E, Klein CL. Evaluation of the potential renal transplant recipient. In Murphy B, Brennan DC (ed.), UpToDate, 2014.
• 15.The 2008 SRTR report on the state of transplantation www.ustransplant.org/ annual_reports (Accessed on February 02, 2010).
• 16. Gore JL, Pham PT, Danovitch GM, Wilkinson AH, Rosenthal JT, Lipshutz GS, et al. Obesity and outcome following renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2006;6 (2):357-363.
• 17. Cannon RM, Jones CM, Hughes MG, Eng M, Marvin MR. The impact of recipient obesity on outco mes after renal transplantation. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):978-984.
• 18. Furriel F, Parada B, Campos L, Moreira P, Castelo D, Dias V, et al. Pretransplantationoverweight and obesity: does it really affect kidney transplantation outcomes? TransplantProc. 201;43(1):95-99.
• 19. Marrero D, Hernandez D, Tamajón LP, Rivero M, Lampreabe I,Checa MD, et al.For the Spanish Late Allograft Dysfunction Study Group. Pretransplant weight but not weight gain is associated with new-onset diabetes after transplantation: a multi-centre cohort Spanish study. NDT Plus. 2010;3(Suppl_2):ii15-ii20.
• 20.Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Matas AJ, Ellison MD, Gill JS, Kausz AT. Preemptive kidney transplantation: the advantage and the advantaged. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(5):1358–64.