Steffan Jackobs

Management of major postsurgical gastroesophageal intrathoracic leaks with an endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system

BACKGROUND Endoscopic treatment options for postsurgical intrathoracic leaks include injection of fibrin glue, clip application, and stent placement. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (E-VAC) may be an effective treatment option. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate that E-VAC is an effective endoscopic treatment option for closure of major intrathoracic postsurgical leaks. DESIGN AND SETTING A prospective, single-center study at an academic medical center. PATIENTS Eight consecutive patients with major intrathoracic postsurgical leaks. INTERVENTIONS Endoscopic placement of transnasal draining tubes, armed with a size-adjusted sponge at their distal end, in the necrotic anastomotic cavities, followed by continuous suction. Sponge and drainage were changed twice weekly. Patients were followed-up for 193 +/- 137 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT Successful leak closure. RESULTS Successful closure of leaks was achieved in 7 of 8 patients (88%) after a mean of 23 +/- 8 days. A median of 7 endoscopic interventions was necessary. No major treatment-associated short-term or long-term (follow-up, 193 +/- 137 days) complications were noted. LIMITATIONS Small sample size, single-center study, and lack of randomization. CONCLUSION E-VAC is an effective endoscopic treatment modality for major postsurgical intrathoracic leaks. (This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT00876551.).

Quality of life following living donor nephrectomy comparing classical flank incision and anterior vertical mini-incision

In this study we focused on the quality of life and satisfaction of living kidney donors comparing traditional lumbar (LDN) and mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MIDN). From May 1996 to December 2002, 174 donor nephrectomies including 127 cases of LDN and 47 cases of MIDN were performed. Donors were evaluated using the SF-36 quality-of-life survey as well as a questionnaire dealing with donors‘ attitude towards kidney donation, financial burdens, pain, cosmetic satisfaction and duration of sick leave. Our donors achieved comparable or even higher scores in all the SF-36 categories in comparison to the general US population. Following MIDN, quality of life tended to be superior compared to that of LDN donors; however, statistical significance was reached only in one of the eight categories. Duration of sick leave following surgery was in favor of MIDN compared to LDN donors. Statistically significant differences favoring MIDN were observed regarding postoperative hospital stay and cosmetic satisfaction. The procedure would be again undergone by 94 of LDN and 97% of MIDN donors. Open-donor nephrectomy is a safe and cost-effective procedure. Introduction of the here-described MIDN has led to comparable or even improved results compared to LDN.

Living kidney donors >60 years of age: is it acceptable for the donor and the recipient?

Donors >60 years are now frequently accepted for living kidney transplantation (LKT). We asked whether a donor age >60 years may result in a higher risk for donor and recipient. All adult LKT from May 1996 to June 2005 were included. Long‐term outcome was analysed, and results were compared for donors >60 and ≤60 years. Thirty‐five grafts were obtained from donors >60 (group A) and 158 from donors ≤60 years (group B). In group A 40% and in group B 37% of grafts came from unrelated donors (P = 0.769). The mean hospital stay of donors was 8 days in group A and 7 days in group B (P = 0.171). The complication rate was 11% in group A and 17% in group B (P = 0.409). Following LKT primary graft function was observed in 97% in group A and 96% in group B. One‐ and 5‐year graft survival was 97% and 90% in group A and 99% and 91% in group B. For the first 2 years, mean serum creatinine was significantly higher in recipients of group A. Thereafter, values were comparable for both groups. As excellent results are achievable using living donors >60 years, we suggest that age should no longer be considered as a contra‐indication for living donation.

Renal transplantation today.

BackgroundThe first successful renal transplant was carried out more than five decades ago between identical twins. At these early days, acute rejection was the limiting factor.DiscussionDue to tremendous progress in immunosuppressive therapy and surgical technique, today, renal transplantation is the gold standard therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. In fact, in comparison with chronic hemodialysis, renal transplantation offers an increase in quality of life while reducing comorbidities associated with dialysis treatment.ResultsDespite numerous beneficial achievements, no further improvement regarding patient outcome can be observed over the last two decades. Graft survival rates remain unchanged. The leading causes for graft loss are chronic allograft nephropathy and death with functioning graft. This might be related to a constant increase of the proportion of donors presenting extended donor criteria as well as a more liberal acceptance of candidates for a renal transplant.ConclusionIn the near future, one has to focus more closely on the posttransplant patient care to minimize factors associated with chronic allograft damage. These include post-transplant diabetes, hyperlipidemia, high blood pressure, cytomegalovirus infection, etc.

Presence of small parathyroid glands in renal transplant patients supports less-than-total parathyroidectomy to treat hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND Parathyroid glands (PG) are rarely analyzed in renal transplant (RTX) patients. This study analyzes comparatively PG of RTX and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. The clinical part of the study evaluates if total parathyroidectomy with autotransplantation (TPT+AT) treats appropriately hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism in RTX patients. METHODS TPT+AT was performed in 15 of 23 RTX and 21 of 27 ESRD patients. Remaining patients underwent less-than-total PT. Volume and stage of hyperplasia were determined from 86 PG of RTX and 109 PG of ESRD patients. Patients were categorized according to the presence of small PG (volume < 100 mm(3)). Calcium homeostasis and hyperparathyroidism were evaluated 2 years after PT in RTX patients. RESULTS PG of RTX patients were significantly smaller, but similar hyperplastic in comparison to PG of ESRD patients. Small PG were more frequent in RTX than in ESRD patients (19% vs 6%) and mainly graded normal or diffuse hyperplastic (94%). Forty-seven percent of RTX, but only 14% of ESRD, patients receiving a total PT possessed ≥1 small PG (P < .05). Overall, PT treated successfully hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism. However, TPT+AT caused permanent hypocalcemia in 50% of RTX patients without small PG and even in 83% of RTX patients with small PG. All RTX patients receiving less-than-total PT were normocalcemic at 2-year follow-up. Logistic regression revealed a 10.7 times greater risk of permanent hypocalcemia in RTX patients with small PG receiving TPT+AT compared with RTX patients without small PG receiving TPT+AT or RTX patients undergoing less-than-total PT. CONCLUSION Surgeons performing PT should be aware of the high frequency of small and less diseased PG in RTX patients. In this context, TPT+AT might overtreat hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism in RTX patients, especially when small PG are present.