A Single Centre Experience of Renal Transplantation in Diyarbakir

Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the results of the transplantation program that started in 2012 in our hospital.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Methods: We examined the demographic variables, immunosuppressive protocols, rejection rates, graft survival, mortality, postoperative surgical complications, BK viremia (BKV) and BK virus-assoiciated nephropathy (BKN), cytomegaloviruse (CMV) infection rates, tuberculosis (TBC) rates and posttransplant malignancy rates of 115 patients who received kidney transplant in our transplantation center between September 2012 and December 2016.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:More meaningful results can be obtained with long-term follow-up results.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2012 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the results of the transplantation program that started in 2012 in our hospital. Methods: We examined the demographic variables, immunosuppressive protocols, rejection rates, graft survival, mortality, postoperative surgical complications, BK viremia (BKV) and BK virus-assoiciated nephropathy (BKN), cytomegaloviruse (CMV) infection rates, tuberculosis (TBC) rates and posttransplant malignancy rates of 115 patients who received kidney transplant in our transplantation center between September 2012 and December 2016. Results: Twelve (10.4%) patients received kidney from cadaver donors and 103 (89.6%) paients received kidney from living donors. The Mean donor age was 42 and the mean recipient age was 34.65 . Male to female ratio was 65/50 for the recipients and 48/67 for the donors. Median discharge creatinine was 1.03 mg/dl [interquartile range=0.55-1.48]. Seven patients (6%) suffered from acute rejection and graft loses occurred in four (3.4%) patients. There was no mortality. Conclusion: Our kidney transplantation program is in the developmental stage. However, short-term outcomes are consistent with the literature. More meaningful results can be obtained with long-term follow-up results.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ülkemizde 1975 yılında uygulamaya geçen ve hastanemizde ancak 2012 yılında başlatılan böbrek nakli programının sonuçlarını retrospektif olarak değerlendirmektir.Yöntemler: Eylül 2012-Aralık 2016 tarihleri arasında Organ Nakli Merkezimizde böbrek transplantasyonu uygulanan 115 hasta demografik veriler, immunsüpresif protokolü, rejeksiyon durumu, greft kaybı, hasta kaybı, postoperatif cerrahi komplikasyonlar, BK viremi (BKV) ve nefropatisi (BKN), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infeksiyonu, tüberküloz (TBC) ve posttransplant malignensi açısından değerlendirildi. Bulgular: On iki olguya (%10,4) kadavradan, 103 olguya (%89,6) canlı donörden böbrek transplantasyonu uygulandı. Alıcıların ve donörlerin ortalama yaşı sırası ile 34.65 (12-68) ve 42 (23-72) idi. Erkek/Kadın oranı alıcı ve donörlerde sırası ile 65/50 ve48/67 idi. Postoperatif median ve çeyreklerarası aralık (ÇAA) taburculuk kreatini 1.03 [0.55-1.48] mg/dl idi. Yedi (%6) olgu akut rejeksiyon tanısı aldı. Dört olguda (%3,4) greft kaybı gözlendi. Mortalite gözlenmedi.Sonuç: Böbrek transplantasyonu programımız gelişim aşamasındadır. Ancak kısa dönem sonuçlar literatür ile uyumlu görünmektedir. Uzun süreli takip sonuçları ile daha anlamlı sonuçlar elde edilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AY, N., KAYA, Ş., ÇİÇEK, N., BAHADIR, M. V. (2017). A Single Centre Experience of Renal Transplantation in Diyarbakir. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 199–204. https://ajindex.com/articles/200320

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

Ahmad N, Ahmed K, Khan MS, et al. Living-unrelated donor renal transplantation: an alternative to living- related donor transplantation? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008; 90:247-50.
Türkiye Organ, Doku Nakli ve Diyaliz Hizmetleri Daire Başkanlığı. https://organ.saglik.gov.tr/0TR/70Istatistik/ ORGAN_010103.aspx Suthanthiran M, Strom TB. Renal transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331:365-76.
Port FK, Wolfe RA, Mauger EA, Berling DP, Jiang K. Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients. JAMA. 1993; 270: 1339-43.
Ay N, Anıl M, Alp V, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life Early and Late After Kidney Transplantation. Ann Transplant. 2015; 20: 493-499 DOI: 10.12659/ AOT.895139 Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, et al. Living Unrelated Versus Related Kidney Transplantation: A 25-Year Experience with 3716 Cases. Urol J. 2016 Mar 5; 13: 2546-51.
Ali A. A, Al-Saedi AJ, Al-Mudhaffer AJ, et al. Five years renal transplantation data: Single-center experience from Iraq. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2016 Mar;27: 341-7. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.178559. Sayin B, Colak T, Tutal E, et al. Comparison of preemptive kidney transplant recipients with nonpreemptive kidney recipients in single center: 5 years of follow-up. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2013; 6:95-9. doi: 10.2147/IJNRD.S42042. Print 2013. García P, Huerfano M, Rodríguez M, et al. Acute Rejection in Renal Transplant Patients of a Hospital in Bogota, Colombia. Int J Organ Transplant Med. 2016; 7:161-6.
Krajewski W, Dembowski J, Kolodziej A, et al. Urological complications after renal transplantation -a single centre experience. Cent European J Urol. 2016; 69:306-11.
Josephson MA, Williams JW, Chandraker A, et al. Polymavirus-associated nephropathy: update on antiviral strategies. Transplant Infect Dis. 2006; 8:95- 101. Singh N, Paterson DL. Aspergillus infections in transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18:44- 69.