Symptomatic lymphocele after kidney transplantation: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: In a retrospective study, we evaluated the frequency, clinical presentation, and management of lymphocele in kidney transplant recipients operated on in a single center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 1984 and June 2005, we had 2147 kidney transplantations from living donors. During the follow-up period, ultrasonography was performed in symptomatic patients and those with elevated serum creatinine level postoperatively. Other radiological procedures were done in complicated cases. Patients with lymphocele were treated by percutaneous drainage with or without injection of sclerotizing agent (povidone iodine). If recurrence occurred, surgical intraperitoneal drainage was performed. In cases with multiloculated collection or inappropriate access for percutaneous drainage, the primary approach was surgical intraperitoneal drainage. RESULTS: Symptomatic lymphocele collection was seen in 17 kidney recipients of our series (0.8; 95 confidence interval, 0.4 to 1.2). It presented with elevation of serum creatinine concentrations (47.1), pain and abdominopelvic swelling (29.4), and lower extremity edema (23.5). Percutaneous drainage was used for the treatment of lymphocele in 11 patients, but recurrence occurred in 7 (63.6). These cases were treated with open surgical drainage. In 6 patients, the primary approach was surgical intraperitoneal drainage, because of multiloculated collection or inappropriate access for percutaneous drainage. All of the patients were treated successfully and no graft loss occurred during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic lymphocele is an uncommon complication after kidney transplantation. Surgical intraperitoneal drainage is the most effective approach for the management of symptomatic lymphocele

Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies

Objective To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. Methods A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. Results Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). Conclusions Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A prospective case-control study of the local and systemic cytokine response after laparoscopic versus open colonic surgery

BACKGROUND: There is a sequential, high concentration cytokine response after major abdominal surgery. The magnitude of this response has been directly linked to postoperative metabolic derangement, ileus, adhesions, and oncological outcomes. We aimed to compare the local and systemic cytokine response in laparoscopic and open colonic surgery and relate this to postoperative recovery parameters. METHODS: Using a prospectively collected patient database, we compared a Study Group (n = 50) of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colonic resection with a Control Group (n = 25) of patients undergoing equivalent open colonic surgery within an ERAS program. Patients were matched for age, gender, BMI, ASA, Cr Possum, side of resection, diagnosis, and histologic stage. Plasma and peritoneal fluid concentrations of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and TNFα were measured at 20-24 h after surgery. The Surgical Recovery Score was determined pre-operatively and at 3, 7, 30, and 60 d postoperatively. All data were prospectively collected, and a priori definitions were used for discharge parameters, complications, and complication severity. RESULTS: Peritoneal fluid IL-6 concentration was lower after laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the other cytokines measured, or in any postoperative recovery outcomes. Significant correlations were found between cytokine levels and discharge criteria achievement, day stay, postoperative complications, and the Surgical Recovery Score. CONCLUSION: With the exception of a lower peritoneal IL-6 level, the systemic and peritoneal cytokine response at 20-24 h is similar after laparoscopic versus open colonic resection within an ERAS program, with corresponding equivalent rates of postoperative recovery.Tarik Sammour, Arman Kahokehr, Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari and Andrew G. Hil

Predicting emergency interventions in patients with acute ureteral colic using acute renal colic scoring system in a Pakistani cohort

Objective: To evaluate the acute renal colic score (ARC) in predicting the need of emergency intervention (EI) in patients with ureteric colic secondary to a ureteral stone.Patient and methods: In an emergency room (ER) of a university hospital, we conducted a prospective cohort study over a period of 6 months. ARC score was calculated using four parameters, i.e., serum creatinine, total white cell count (TLC), stone length and level. Primary outcome measure was EI, which was defined as the need of endourological intervention within 48 h of presentation. ARC was calculated for each patient against the two possible outcomes, i.e., EI vs. no EI. The need of intervention was based on patient-related clinical factors and the decision of the attending urologist.Results: The study included 132 patients. EI was performed in 85 patients (64.4%). URS was the most common intervention performed in 81 (95.3%) patients, followed by the a insertion of a double J stent in two (2.4%) patients for forniceal rupture and high TLC count and percutaneous nephrostomy in two (2.4%) patients for raised creatinine and TLC. All four variables in ARC score including serum creatinine (p \u3c 0.001), TLC (p \u3c 0.001), stone size (p \u3c 0.001) and stone level (p \u3c 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with need for EI. Using ROC the sensitivity and specificity of the score was 92.9% and 87.5%, respectively, with AUC of 0.93.Conclusions: ARC score is highly sensitive and specific in determining the need of EI in patients with uncomplicated ureteric colic within 48 h of initial presentation