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!     

Calcified atherosclerotic plaque - where exactly is the calcium and what does it contain?

Objective  

To understand the morphology and mineral content in calcified atherosclerotic plaques.     

PARTNER B: where will it take us?

PARTNER trial, cohort B has taken our cardiovascular community to new heights in multidisciplinary collaboration while raising awareness in the primary care community regarding the shortcomings of noninterventional treatment of symptomatic AS. With a rate of death from any cause at 1 year that is 20% lower with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison with standard medical therapy, TAVR should be considered the new standard of care for patients with AS who are not suitable candidates for surgery. Despite TAVR's initial success, this landmark trial leaves questions about durability, paravalvular regurgitation, and procedural complications unanswered. Nonetheless, TAVR is clearly and unequivocally a new and successful treatment for symptomatic AS. Complication rates in this early stage of experience with a first-generation device are much lower than many had expected, and will not prevent TAVR from moving steadily down the risk spectrum.     

Hip osteoarthritis: where is the pain?

BACKGROUND: Pain radiating below the knee is typically thought to originate from the lumbosacral spine rather than degenerative hip pathology. We investigated the lower limb distribution of pain using body image maps in 60 patients awaiting primary hip arthroplasty and in 60 patients awaiting spinal decompression for confirmed spinal stenosis. The perception of 33 orthopaedic registrars regarding distribution of hip pain was also assessed. RESULTS: Groin and buttock pain are significantly more common in hip osteoarthritis. The presence of groin pain is 84.3% of those sensitive for hip dysfunction with a specificity of 70.3%. Patients with hip osteoarthritis had pain below the knee in 47% of cases whereas 88.5% of orthopaedic trainees believed hip pain did not radiate below the knee. Radiographic features of osteoarthritis within the hip joint, visual analogue pain score or Oxford Hip Score have no significant association with a patient's distribution of hip pain. CONCLUSIONS: Hip pain referred below the knee is common with a degenerate hip joint and follows the distribution of the saphenous nerve, which branches from the femoral nerve. Radiographic deterioration of a hip joint does not correlate with pain distribution or patient dysfunction as measured by the Oxford Hip Score.     

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.     

Hyperhidrosis: What is it and Why Does it Occur?

Hyperhidrosis is excessive sweating in response to heat or emotional stimuli beyond physiologic need. The ailment is not new and has been described in the literature dating back several centuries. It can be classified as either primary or secondary based on its etiology. Mechanisms that cause excessive sweating can be traced to the sympathetic nervous system, part of the autonomic nervous system. It has been speculated that the primary abnormality is central, and that the hypothalamic sweat center that controls the palms, axillae, and soles is distinct in hyperhidrosis individuals.     

Retroperitoneal approach for aortic surgery: is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest that earlier hospital discharges and reduced postoperative complications occur when a retroperitoneal approach is used for aortic surgery. Other publications refute this concept. In an effort to determine the most cost efficient method for aortic surgery in our institution, while maintaining high standards of care and outcome, we compared the retroperitoneal approach to the conventional transperitoneal aortic operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 1995 and April 1998, 120 patients underwent aortic surgery by either the transperitoneal (n=60) or retroperitoneal approach (n=60). All patients were enrolled prospectively in a vascular registry and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three vascular surgeons. A clinical pathway for elective aortic surgery was developed and applied to both groups. Patients were evaluated with respect to demographics, comorbidities, preoperative risk stratification, conduct of the operative procedure, length of stay, complications, cost, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. The indications for aortic surgery were similar in both groups - 64% for aneurysm disease and 36% for occlusive disease. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic aneurysms were included and size ranged from 4.4 to 14cm. All aortic reconstructions were done in the standard manner using knitted Dacron velour prostheses in either the aortic tube, bi-iliac or bi-femoral configuration. Statistical analysis of means and medians was accomplished using the Wilcoxin Rank-sum test and percentages were compared using Fisher's Exact test. P values less than 0.05 indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics. The incidence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, tobacco abuse, distal lower extremity occlusive disease and the results of chemical myocardial stress evaluations were similar in both groups. Comorbidities of pre-existing renal insufficiency/failure and morbid obesity were increased in the retroperitoneal group. Five patients in the retroperitoneal group represented redo aortic surgery and there were no redo procedures in the transperitoneal group. Length of operative procedures and blood replacement requirements for both groups were similar. The transperitoneal group required 2-3l more intraoperative intravenous (IV) crystalloid than the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). Statistically significant reductions in ICU days, postoperative ileus and total lengths of stay were observed in the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). This resulted in substantial reductions in hospital costs for the retroperitoneal group (P<0.01). Postoperative complications were similar for both groups except for statistically significant increases in pulmonary edema (P<0.01) and pneumonia (P<0.001) in the transperitoneal group. Cardiac arrhythmias, primarily atrial dysrhythmias, were more frequent in the transperitoneal group but this failed to reach statistical significance (P<0.16). Combined thirty day mortality was 0.9%. Time of recovery to full activity and patient satisfaction substantially favored the retroperitoneal group. CONCLUSION: Our clinical pathway and algorithm for aortic surgery was easily followed by those patients in the retroperitoneal approach group and resulted in decreases in ICU time, postoperative ileus, volume of intraoperative crystalloid and total length of stay. The patients in the transperitoneal group often failed to progress appropriately on the pathway. Reduced hospital costs associated with aortic surgery using the retroperitoneal approach has increased the profitability for this surgery in our institution by an average of $4000 per case and has increased the value (quality/cost) of this surgery to our patients and our institution.     

Reaming during anterograde femoral nailing: is it worth it?

A systematic review was performed to assess the relative merits of reamed and unreamed antegrade femoral nailing. To be included, a study had to be prospective, randomised or pseudorandomised, comparing reamed and unreamed antegrade femoral nailing in adults. Where more than one study from the same institution was available, only the study with longest follow-up was included. A literature search found 2044 possible articles. Of these, eight studies compared reamed and unreamed femoral nailing. The methodology of these articles was independently assessed by all the three authors. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Each outcome measure tested was assessed for heterogeneity. If significant heterogeneity was present, the data were not combined. If there was no significant heterogeneity, a combined odds ratio or weighted mean difference was calculated using a fixed effects model, and a Z-test was performed to test the overall effect. Six hundred and forty-seven femoral fractures (315 reamed; 332 unreamed) were entered into the included studies. Unreamed nailing was quicker and associated with significantly less blood loss (P < 0.00001). Reaming significantly reduced the time to union (P = 0.00001), non-union (P = 0.002), delayed union (P = 0.005), technical problems (P = 0.01) and reoperation rate (P = 0.001). The use of reamed femoral nails gives significant advantages over unreamed femoral nails.