Vera Marques

Head-to-head comparison of two online nomograms for prostate biopsy outcome prediction

Study Type – Diagnosis (exploratory cohort)
Level of Evidence 2b

Intracaval misplacement of a double-J ureteral stent

Double-J ureteral stent (DJUS) is an important therapeutic tool in endourology. There are well-known frequent complications associated with DJUS placement such as distal and proximal migration within the urinary tract. However, perforation and stent misplacement are uncommon but serious complications of this technique. We present a case of a 63-year-old man who had a misplacement of a DJUS into the inferior vena cava during an elective procedure of ureteral catheterisation. The stent placement was performed under fluoroscopic control and it seemed well positioned. Actually, the DJUS was misplaced in the inferior vena cava after drilling at the level of the crossing of the ureter with the ipsilateral iliac vessels. Diagnosis was incidentally made 3 months after the placement of the stent in a renal CT scan. The patient was always asymptomatic. We performed an endoscopic removal of the ureteral stent, which took place without complications.

916 Pretransplant biopsy in expanded criteria donors. Do we really need it

Introduction. Renal transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, including when using expanded criteria donors (ECD) kidneys. However, these suboptimal kidneys should be evaluated rigorously to meet their usefulness. Opinions differ about the best way to evaluate them. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed kidneys from ECD harvested by a single academic institution between January 2008 and September 2013. Needle biopsies were performed at the time of the harvest when considered relevant by the transplant team. Two pathologists where responsible for their analysis; the Remuzzi classification has been used in all cases. Results. We evaluated 560 ECD kidneys. Biopsies were made in 197 (35.2%) organs, 20 of which were considered not usable and 36 good only for double transplantation. Sixty-three kidneys (11.3%) were discarded by the transplant team based on the biopsy result and clinical criteria. Donors who underwent a biopsy were older (P < .001) and had a worse glomerular filtration rate (GFR; P 1⁄4 .001). Comparing donors approved and rejected by the biopsy, the rejected donors were heavier (P 1⁄4 .003) and had a lower GFR (P 1⁄4 .002). Cold ischemia time was longer for the biopsy group (P < .001). Regarding graft function, the biopsy overall score correlated with the transplant outcome in the short and long term. Separately, glomeruli and interstitium scores were correlated with recipient’s GFR in the earlier periods (3 months; P 1⁄4 .025 and .037), and the arteries and tubules correlated with GFR in the longer term (at 3 years P 1⁄4 .004 and .010). Conclusion. The decision on the usability of ECD grafts is complex. At our center, we chose a mixed approach based on donor risk. Low-risk ECD do not require biopsy. In more complex situations, especially older donors or those with a lower GFR, prompted a pretransplant biopsy. The biopsy results proved to be useful as they relate to subsequent transplant outcomes, thereby allowing us to exclude grafts whose function would most probably be less than optimal.