Validating Consensus-Defined Severity Grading of Lymphatic Complications after Kidney Transplant
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Surgical Team and Surgical Procedure
2.2. Data Extraction
2.2.1. Donor-Related Data
2.2.2. Preoperative Data
2.2.3. Intra- and Postoperative Data
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Pre- and Intraoperative Data
3.2. Postoperative Data
3.3. Validation of Lymphocele Severity after KTx
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ranghino, A.; Segoloni, G.P. Lymphatic disorders after renal transplantation: New insights for an old complication. Clin. Kidney J. 2015, 8, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Golriz, M.; Klauss, M. Prevention and management of lymphocele formation following kidney transplantation. Transplant. Rev. 2017, 31, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucan, C.V.; Jurchis, I. Modern lymphatic dissection techniques for preventing post renal transplant lymphocele. Clujul Med. 2017, 90, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mehrabi, A.; Kulu, Y. Consensus on definition and severity grading of lymphatic complications after kidney transplantation. Br. J. Surg. 2020, 107, 801–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Syversveen, T.; Midtvedt, K. Prophylactic peritoneal fenestration to prevent morbidity after kidney transplantation: A randomized study. Transplantation 2011, 92, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ulrich, F.; Niedzwiecki, S. Symptomatic lymphoceles after kidney transplantation—Multivariate analysis of risk factors and outcome after laparoscopic fenestration. Clin. Transplant. 2010, 24, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Atray, N.K.; Moore, F. Post transplant lymphocele: A single centre experience. Clin. Transplant. 2004, 18 (Suppl. 12), 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beimler, J.S.J.; Büchler, M.; Zeier, M. Heidelberger Manual der Nieren- und Pankreastransplantation; Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Susal, C.; Fichtner, A. Clinical Relevance of HLA Antibodies in Kidney Transplantation: Recent Data from the Heidelberg Transplant Center and the Collaborative Transplant Study. J. Immunol. Res. 2017, 2017, 5619402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mihaljevic, A.L.; Heger, P. Prophylaxis of lymphocele formation after kidney transplantation via peritoneal fenestration: A systematic review. Transpl. Int. 2017, 30, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bailey, S.H.; Mone, M.C. Laparoscopic treatment of post renal transplant lymphoceles. Surg. Endosc. Other Interv. Tech. 2003, 17, 1896–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burghuber, C.K.; Kandioler, D. Standardized intraoperative application of an absorbable polysaccharide hemostatic powder to reduce the incidence of lymphocele after kidney transplantation—A prospective trial. Transpl. Int. 2019, 32, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goel, M.; Flechner, S.M. The influence of various maintenance immunosuppressive drugs on lymphocele formation and treatment after kidney transplantation. J. Urol. 2004, 171, 1788–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, H.S.; Joo, D.J. Laparoscopic fenestration versus percutaneous catheter drainage for lymphocele treatment after kidney transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 2013, 45, 1667–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lima, M.L.; Cotrim, C.A. Laparoscopic treatment of lymphoceles after renal transplantation. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2012, 38, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Presser, N.; Kerr, H. Fibrin Glue Injections: A Minimally Invasive and Cost-Effective Treatment for Post–Renal Transplant Lymphoceles and Lymph Fistulas. Am. J. Transplant. 2016, 16, 694–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Øyen, O.; Siwach, V. Improvement of post-transplant lymphocele treatment in the laparoscopic era. Transpl. Int. 2002, 15, 406–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zincke, H.; John, E.W. Attempted immunological alteration of canine renal allograft donors. Transplantation 1974, 18, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zagdoun, E.; Ficheux, M.; Lobbedez, T. Complicated Lymphoceles After Kidney Transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 2010, 42, 4322–4325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clavien, P.A.; Sanabria, J.R. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 1992, 111, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dindo, D.; Demartines, N. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucewicz, A.; Wong, G. Management of primary symptomatic lymphocele after kidney transplantation: A systematic review. Transplantation 2011, 92, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cadrobbi, R.; Zaninotto, G. Laparoscopic treatment of lymphocele after kidney transplantation. Surg. Endosc. 1999, 13, 985–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sevmis, M.; Aktas, S. Risk Factors, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lymphocele After Renal Transplantation: A Retrospective Study. Transplant. Proc. 2021, 53, 1040–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grade A | Grade B | Grade C | |
---|---|---|---|
Treatment | None/diagnostic or therapeutic aspiration (puncture) | Non-surgical intervention | Surgical treatment (laparoscopic/open) |
(percutaneous external drainage, sclerotherapy, double-J, radiation) | |||
Persistence | No | No/yes | Yes |
Loculation | Non-loculated | Non-loculated | Non-loculated/loculated |
Infection | No | No/yes | No/yes |
Rise of serum creatinine levels | No | Usually no | No/yes |
Previous failed non-surgical intervention | No | No/yes | Usually yes |
Previous failed surgical intervention | No | No | No/yes |
Grade A n = 24 (4.1%) | Grade B n = 14 (2.4%) | Grade C n = 52 (8.8%) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Donors | ||||
Brain dead/living donor | 16/8 (66.7/33.3) | 4/10 (28.6/71.4) | 25/27 (48.1/51.9) | 0.070 |
Gender (female/male) | 12/12 (50/50) | 8/6 (57.1/42.9) | 30/22 (57.7/42.3) | 0.814 |
Age (year) | 54.9 ± 11.4 | 59.2 ± 12.9 | 55.0 ± 11.8 | 0.342 |
Side of the kidney (left/right) | 11/13 (45.8/54.2) | 7/7 (50/50) | 27/25 (51.9/48.1) | 0.885 |
Recipients | ||||
Gender (female/male) | 10/14 (41.6/58.4) | 5/9 (35.7/64.3) | 12/40 (23.1/78.9) | 0.228 |
Age (year) | 51.3 ± 13.0 | 55.1 ± 12.8 | 51.2 ± 14.9 | 0.556 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 26.1 ± 3.8 | 27.1 ± 6.2 | 26.3 ± 4.0 | 0.859 |
Smoking | 9 (37.5) | 4 (28.6) | 22 (42.3) | 0.637 |
Indication for KTx | 0.581 | |||
Glomerulonephritis | 10 (41.7) | 5 (35.7) | 21 (41.4) | |
Congenital/polycystic disorder | 9 (37.5) | 5 (35.7) | 15 (28.8) | |
Diabetes/hypertension | 1 (4.1) | 1 (7.1) | 6 (11.5) | |
Obstructive nephropathy | 1 (4.1) | 1 (7.1) | 1 (1.9) | |
Peripheral vascular disease | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (7.7) | |
Tubulointerstitial nephritis | 1 (4.8) | 2 (14.3) | 1 (1.9) | |
Other/unknown | 2 (8.2) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (7.7) | |
Dialysis before KTx | 0.245 | |||
None | 0 (0.0) | 2 (14.3) | 5 (9.3) | |
Hemodialysis | 22 (90.5) | 9 (64.3) | 37 (71.1) | |
Peritoneal dialysis | 2 (9.5) | 3 (21.4) | 10 (19.2) | |
Duration | 73.8 (9.0–171) | 81.7 (3–186) | 57.8 (2–147) | 0.196 |
Comorbidities | ||||
Chronic anemia | 14 (58.3) | 13 (92.9) | 40 (71.4) | 0.069 |
Coagulopathy | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (5.4) | 0.322 |
Hypertension | 14 (58.3) | 13 (92.9) | 40 (71.4) | 0.051 |
Diabetes mellitus | 2 (9.5) | 2 (14.3) | 7 (12.5) | 0.791 |
Previous abdominal operation | 5 (23.8) | 7 (50) | 18 (34.6) | 0.176 |
Nephrectomy | 3 (14.3) | 3 (21.4) | 10 (19.2) | 0.719 |
Retransplantation | 0 (0.0) | 2 (14.3) | 7 (12.5) | 0.162 |
Cold ischemia time (hours) | 10.4 (0.0–20.0) | 10.9 (3.3–14.0) | 11.3 (0.0–33.1) | 0.950 |
Side of graft (left/right) | 13/11 (54.2/45.8) | 9/5 (64.3/35.7) | 21/31 (40.4/59.6) | 0.216 |
Duration of operation (minutes) | 178.8 (105–332) | 169.5 (110–265) | 188.8 (90–480) | 0.803 |
Blood loss (mL) | 357.5 (100–1700) | 234.6 (50–500) | 394.3 (50–2200) | 0.632 |
Main immunosuppression (cyclosporin/tacrolimus) | 14/10 (58.3/41.7) | 6/8 (42.9/57.1) | 34/18 (65.4/34.6) | 0.306 |
Creatinine level (at diagnosis, mg/dL) | 2.2 (0.6–6.0) | 2.4 (0.9–5.3) | 2.2 (0.8–6.2) | 0.856 |
Grade A n = 24 (4.1%) | Grade B n = 14 (2.4%) | Grade C n = 52 (8.8%) | p-Value § (pv < 0.05) | Lymphocele Grade | Post Hoc * (pv < 0.008) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Symptomatic lymphocele | 0 (0.0) | 14 (100) | 52 (100) | <0.001 | Grade A | <0.0001 |
Grade B | 0.01 | |||||
Grade C | <0.0001 | |||||
General manifestations | 0 (0.0) | 2 (14.3) | 9 (17.3) | 0.098 | ||
Visceral manifestations | 0 (0.0) | 7 (50) | 24 (46.2) | <0.001 | ||
Vascular manifestations | 0 (0.0) | 5 (35.7) | 19 (36.5) | 0.003 | ||
Urological | 0 (0.0) | 3 (21.4) | 15 (28.8) | 0.014 | Grade A | 0.003 |
Grade B | 0.317 | |||||
Grade C | 0.012 | |||||
Loculation | 0.660 | |||||
Uniloculated | 5 (23.8) | 2 (14.3) | 10 (19.2) | |||
Multiloculated | 4 (16.7) | 4 (28.6) | 17 (32.7) | |||
Outcome | ||||||
Recurrence after 1st intervention * | 0/24 (0.0) | 43/54 (79.6) | 2/12 (16.6) | <0.001 | Grade A | <0.001 |
Grade B | <0.001 | |||||
Grade C | 0.193 | |||||
Readmission after 1st intervention * | 0/24 (0) | 15/54 (27.8) | 1/12 (8.3) | 0.008 | Grade A | 0.006 |
Grade B | 0.002 | |||||
Grade C | 0.368 | |||||
IMC stay (days) | 4 (0–5) | 4 (2–8) | 5 (2–11) | <0.001 | Grade A vs. B | 0.157 |
Grade B vs. C | <0.001 | |||||
Grade A vs. C | 0.027 | |||||
Hospital stay (days) | 21.22 (10–46) | 26.1 (9–91) | 30.9 (12–67) | <0.001 | Grade A vs. B | 0.011 |
Grade B vs. C | 0.041 | |||||
Grade A vs. C | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sabagh, M.; Mohammadi, S.; Ramouz, A.; Khajeh, E.; Ghamarnejad, O.; Morath, C.; Mieth, M.; Kulu, Y.; Zeier, M.; Mehrabi, A.; et al. Validating Consensus-Defined Severity Grading of Lymphatic Complications after Kidney Transplant. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214858
Sabagh M, Mohammadi S, Ramouz A, Khajeh E, Ghamarnejad O, Morath C, Mieth M, Kulu Y, Zeier M, Mehrabi A, et al. Validating Consensus-Defined Severity Grading of Lymphatic Complications after Kidney Transplant. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(21):4858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214858
Chicago/Turabian StyleSabagh, Mohammadsadegh, Sara Mohammadi, Ali Ramouz, Elias Khajeh, Omid Ghamarnejad, Christian Morath, Markus Mieth, Yakup Kulu, Martin Zeier, Arianeb Mehrabi, and et al. 2021. "Validating Consensus-Defined Severity Grading of Lymphatic Complications after Kidney Transplant" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 21: 4858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214858
APA StyleSabagh, M., Mohammadi, S., Ramouz, A., Khajeh, E., Ghamarnejad, O., Morath, C., Mieth, M., Kulu, Y., Zeier, M., Mehrabi, A., & Golriz, M. (2021). Validating Consensus-Defined Severity Grading of Lymphatic Complications after Kidney Transplant. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(21), 4858. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214858