Transverse Colonic Perforation in Renal Transplant Recipients During the Early Postoperative Period: A Case Series

Author(s):  
Emily A. Zurbuchen ◽  
Nathalie Sela ◽  
Alexander Maskin
2016 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Chung Yan Ng ◽  
Marianna Leung ◽  
David Landsberg

<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Disturbances in hemostasis are common among renal transplant recipients. Because of the risk of thromboembolism and graft loss after transplant, a prophylactic heparin protocol was implemented at St Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2011. Therapeutic heparin is sometimes prescribed perioperatively for patients with preexisting prothrombotic conditions. There is currently limited literature on the safety and efficacy of heparin use in the early postoperative period.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objectives were to document, for patients who underwent renal transplant, the incidence of major bleeding and of thrombosis in those receiving therapeutic heparin, prophylactic heparin, and no heparin anticoagulation in the early postoperative period and to compare these rates for the latter 2 groups. The secondary objectives included a comparison of the risk factors associated with major bleeding and thrombosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients who received a renal transplant at St Paul’s Hospital between January 2008 and July 2013 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Electronic health records and databases were used to divide patients into the 3 heparin-use cohorts, to identify cases of major bleeding and thrombosis, and to characterize patients and events. The Fisher exact test was used for the primary outcome analysis, and descriptive statistics were used for all other outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 547 patients were included in the analysis. Major bleeding was observed in 6 (46%) of the 13 patients who received therapeutic heparin; no cases of thrombosis occurred in these patients. Major bleeding occurred in 8 (3.0%) of the 266 patients who received prophylactic heparin and 9 (3.4%) of the 268 who received no heparin (<em>p </em>&gt; 0.99). Thrombosis occurred in 1 (0.4%) and 3 (1.1%) of these patients, respectively (<em>p </em>= 0.62). Major bleeding occurred more frequently among patients with a low-target heparin protocol, but 61% of values for partial thromboplastin time were above target. A larger proportion of deceaseddonor transplant recipients who had major bleeding were taking antiplatelet agents, relative to living-donor transplant recipients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Therapeutic use of heparin increased the risk of bleeding among renal transplant recipients, but there were no cases of thrombosis. Prophylactic use of heparin did not increase the risk of bleeding and prevented proportionately more cases of thrombosis relative to no anticoagulation; this result supports the continued use of prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>RÉSUMÉ</strong></p><p><strong>Contexte : </strong>Les troubles de l’hémostase sont courants chez les patients ayant subi une transplantation rénale. Comme il existe des risques de thromboembolie et de perte du greffon après une greffe, un protocole d’administration d’héparine prophylactique a été mis en place en 2011 à l’hôpital Saint-Paul de Vancouver, en Colombie-Britannique. On prescript parfois l’héparine thérapeutique en période périopératoire à certains patients affligés d’un état prothrombotique préexistant. Il n’y a actuellement que peu de documentation sur la sécurité et l’efficacité de l’utilisation d’héparine au début de la période postopératoire.</p><p><strong>Objectifs : </strong>Les objectifs principaux étaient de documenter les incidences de cas d’hémorragie importante et de thrombose chez les patients ayant subi une transplantation rénale et ayant reçu des doses thérapeutiques d’héparine, des doses prophylactiques d’héparine ou aucun anticoagulant au début de la période postopératoire ainsi que de comparer les incidences des cas entre les deux derniers groupes. Les objectifs secondaires incluaient la comparaison des facteurs de risque associés à une hémorragie importante et à une thrombose.</p><p><strong>Méthodes : </strong>Les patients adultes retenus dans la présente étude de cohort rétrospective avaient subi une greffe rénale à l’hôpital Saint-Paul entre janvier 2008 et juillet 2013. Des dossiers de santé informatisés et des bases de données ont servi à séparer les patients en trois cohortes selon l’utilisation ou non et la dose d’héparine afin de déceler les cas d’hémorragie importante et de thrombose et afin d’offrir un portrait des patients et des événements. Le test exact de Fisher a été employé pour l’analyse des principaux paramètres alors que l’on a utilisé des statistiques descriptives pour tous les autres paramètres.</p><p><strong>Résultats : </strong>Au total, 547 patients ont été retenus pour l’analyse. Des hémorragies importantes ont été observées chez 6 (46 %) des 13 patients ayant reçu de l’héparine thérapeutique. Aucune thrombose n’a été relevée chez ces patients. Des hémorragies importantes ont été observées chez 8 (3,0 %) des 266 patients ayant reçu de l’héparine prophylactique et chez 9 (3,4 %) des 268 patients n’ayant pas reçu d’héparine (<em>p </em>&gt; 0,99). Des thromboses ont été observées respectivement chez 1 (0,4 %) et 3 (1,1 %) de ces patients (<em>p </em>= 0,62). Un plus grand nombre de patients ont souffert d’hémorragies importantes avec un protocole à valeurs cibles inférieures pour l’administration d’héparine, mais 61 % des valeurs pour le temps de thromboplastine partielle étaient au-dessus de la cible. Parmi les patients qui ont souffert d’hémorragies importantes et dont le donneur était décédé, une plus grande proportion prenaient des antiplaquettaires.</p><p><strong>Conclusion : </strong>L’administration thérapeutique d’héparine a accru les risques d’hémorragie chez les greffés rénaux, mais il n’y a pas eu de cas de thrombose. L’administration prophylactique d’héparine n’a pas augmenté les risques d’hémorragie et elle a permis d’éviter proportionnellement plus de cas de thrombose que l’absence d’anticoagulant; ce résultat vient appuyer l’utilisation d’héparine prophylactique.</p>


BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Sirisopana ◽  
Pocharapong Jenjitranant ◽  
Premsant Sangkum ◽  
Kittinut Kijvikai ◽  
Suthep Pacharatakul ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed. Results Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP. Conclusions Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. e13417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padmaraj Samarendra ◽  
Mohan Ramkumar ◽  
Vivek Sharma ◽  
Sarita Kumari

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.O. Kaisar ◽  
R.M. Kirwan ◽  
G.M. Strutton ◽  
C.M. Hawley ◽  
D.W. Mudge ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Nabeel Kuwaijo ◽  
Ponnusamy Mohan ◽  
Mohammed Mohammed ◽  
sadiq Lala

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document