A third renal transplantation: is it relevant and is it worth it?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the outcome of third cadaveric renal transplantations performed between 1989 and 2004 among a cohort of 35 patients whose immunosuppression included induction therapy and calcineurin inhibitors. Most patients were highly sensitized with 1 (0-4) HLA (classes I + II) incompatibility between donor and recipient. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 57 months (range, 1-190). Fourteen patients experienced delayed graft function that required posttransplantation hemodialysis. The current patient and graft survival rates were 91.4% and 82.8%, respectively. At last follow-up, 6 grafts had been lost: 1 due to primary nonfunction; 1 due to an urinary leak (day 45); 2 deaths with functioning grafts; and 2 chronic allograft nephropathies (CAN) at 85 and 60 months posttransplantation, respectively. Among the 10 patients who experienced acute rejection episodes, half were steroid-sensitive, whereas the others required OKT3 therapy. Overall, when excluding the 2 patients who presented with early loss of their grafts, 13 of 33 patients (39.4%) developed CAN, which led to the graft loss in only 2 cases. The mean creatinine clearance was 57 +/- 23 mL/min at year 5. Of the 35 recipients, 12 (34.3%) developed graft/perigraft complications, among whom 10 (83.3%) required treatment. The most frequent complication was lymphocele (M = 4; 11.4%) or infections that led to rehospitalization (n = 17). CONCLUSION: Results from third transplantations were encouraging. Thus, despite the organ shortage, a third graft was worth it!     

Scrotal calcinosis: is it idiopathic?

Idiopathic calcinosis of the scrotum is a rare condition, and its pathogenesis remains unknown. We recently examined 3 patients in whom scrotal epidermoid cysts in varying stages of inflammation coexisted with scrotal calcinosis. Some cysts revealed calcification of their keratin contents with little evidence of active inflammation. Other cysts showed rupture of their epithelial walls associated with the presence of keratin fibers and calcium granules in the surrounding dermis. We found that this disorder is not idiopathic and that epidermal inclusion cysts constitute the basic abnormality.     

Total glossectomy: is it justified?

Background: The treatment of advanced malignancies of the tongue with total glossectomy is controversial. Methods: The present study retrospectively reviews 20 patients that had total glossectomy with or without laryngectomy performed at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia) over the past 10 years. The clinicopathologic parameters, perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed. Results: The 5 years disease free and disease specific survival rates were 34% and 38%, respectively. Ninety per cent of patients acquired independent oral feeding prior to discharge, while 57% of patients that had laryngeal preservation performed achieved satisfactory vocal rehabilitation. Conclusion: Total glossectomy is an oncologically sound surgical procedure that should only be performed in carefully selected patients with advanced malignancies affecting the tongue.     

Lung biopsy: is it necessary?

OBJECTIVE: Lung biopsy is associated with substantial mortality rates. We reviewed our experience with this operation, primarily in patients with immunocompetence, to determine whether the results justify the continued performance of this procedure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all diagnostic lung biopsies performed at 3 university-affiliated hospitals between July 1, 1992, and December 31, 1998. RESULTS: There were 75 patients: 25 patients were treated electively, 17 were treated on an urgent basis, 27 patients on an emergency basis, and the urgency was unclear in 6 patients. Significant beneficial therapeutic changes were made in 15 of 25 elective procedures (60%), in 16 of 17 urgent procedures (94%), and in 11 of 27 emergency procedures (41%; P =.001). Significant beneficial therapeutic changes consisted of immunosuppression in 13 of 15 (87%) patients treated on an elective basis, in 9 of 16 (56%) treated on an urgent basis, and in 9 of 11 (82%) treated on an emergency basis in whom therapy was altered (P =.14). Operative death was 0 of 25 for elective operations (0%), 3 of 17 for urgent operations (18%), and 14 of 26 for emergency operations (54%). Multivariable analysis of operative death showed urgency to be the only significant predictor of death (P =.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with immunocompetence, elective and urgent lung biopsies have acceptable operative mortality rates and frequently result in important beneficial therapeutic changes. Consequently biopsies are appropriate in these patients. Emergency biopsies are associated with high operative mortality rates and rarely result in a therapeutic change other than immunosuppression. These patients should not undergo lung biopsy if they are in stable condition and should be treated empirically with immunosuppression without operation if their condition is deteriorating.     

Evidence-based orthopaedics: is it possible?

EBM is referred to as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. This article describes the history and practice of evidence-based medicine.     

Appendicitis, is it an emergency?

Prompt appendectomy has always been a standard of care because of the risk of progression in pathology. This time honored practice has been recently challenged by studies, suggesting that appendicitis can be operated on electively. The aim of this study is to examine whether delayed intervention in acute appendicitis is safe by correlating the interval from presentation to operation with the operative and postoperative complications. Retrospective review of patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis in 2009 was done. The following parameters were recorded: demographics, duration from presentation to evaluation by emergency room attending, performing CT scan, surgical consult, and operation. The pathology, post operative complications, and length of stay were also recorded. Patients were divided into two groups: incision time < 10 hours (early group) and incision time > 10 hours (delayed group). The end points chosen for comparison were: 1) laparoscopic to open conversion rate, 2) complications, 3) readmissions, and 4) length of stay. Number of cases totaled 201, with 76 in the < 10 hours group and 125 in the > 10 hours group. The male to female ratio for the < 10 hours group was 54:22 and for the > 10 hours group was 59:66 (P < 0.001). Length of stay for the early group was 75.52 hours and for the delayed group, 89.15 hours (P = 0.04). There was one intra-abdominal abscess in the early group and 10 in the delayed group (P = 0.04). The early group had 0.2 (2.6%) open conversions, and the delayed group had five (4.1%) conversions (P = 0.58). There were six (4.8%) readmissions in the delayed group and none in the early group (P = 0.05). Our study reveals that the complication rate, length of stay, and readmissions are more in the delayed group. Conversion rate was more in the delayed group, but the difference was not significant. We conclude that early surgical intervention is beneficial in acute appendicitis.     

Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?

Controversy surrounds the use of minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR). This meta-analytical study quantified the effects of minimal access AVR on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional AVR and evaluated study heterogeneity and robustness of the findings using sensitivity analysis. Overall, meta-analysis suggested marginal benefits in perioperative mortality (4,667 patients; odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.00; p = 0.05), intensive care unit stay, total hospital stay, and ventilation time in the minimal access AVR group, although cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total operation times were longer. Study heterogeneity and apparent benefits in perioperative mortality were related to study quality, although results for intensive care unit and hospital stay were maintained according to the sensitivity analysis. This suggests that minimal access AVR can be offered on the basis of patient choice and cosmesis rather than evident clinical benefit.