Ramírez SF, Delgado MD, Bazán BA, González GA, Portilla FV, Aguirre MF

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 93-98
PDF size: 244.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To analyze the medical/surgical specialties assessment for the study of the renal transplant receiver. Material and methods. Retrospective, descriptive and cross section study. Complete files of renal transplant recipient patients from alive and cadaveric donors in Hospital Juarez de Mexico since 1991 trough 2007. Average was used in order to validate the study. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentage. Results. One hundred and ninety five files of recipient patients of renal transplant from cadaveric donor admitted at the Hospital Juarez de Mexico were reviewed, between 1991 to 2007; 103 patients (52.4%) were female and 93 (47.6%) were male, the average age was of 29.3 years with a rank of 14 to 51 years. Before the transplant, all patients were studied with base in our hospital protocol, also they were evaluated by specialists despite of no evidence of infection and/or neoplasia: otolaryngology, ophthalmology, urology, pneumology and maxilofacial surgery; 102 women (100%) were evaluated by gynecology. Specialists’ findings were: Otolaryngology, 119 patients (61%) needed treatment and new assessment from that specialty service, of which 106 patients (89%) were asymptomatic nevertheless had a positive test (pharynx, otic or nasal culture) all of them were treated with antibiotic drugs, the remained 13 patients (10.9%) had other detected pathologies in image test; Ophthalmology, 18 patients (9.2%) required treatment and assessment by symptomatic conjunctivitis, only three patients (1.5%) needed intervention by retinopathies; Urology, 63 patients (32.3%) needed re evaluation and treatment by the Urology service, 58 (92%) had abnormal urine test and in five (8%) anatomical anomalies in the uretrocistography were found; Pneumology, 16 patients (8.2%) required subsequent assessment by the same service, from all these patients 2 (12.5%) had false positive baciloscopy and 14 (87.5%) infection and/or neoplasia were suggested by X ray images; Maxilofacial surgery, 112 patients (57.4%) needed some procedure, 93 of them (83%) were wisdom tooth removal; Gynecology, 23 patients (22.5%) required treatment and subsequent assessment from that service, 17 (73.9%) had an infectious disorder and six (26%) presented a palpable mammary tumor. Seven patients (3.5%) required evaluation by other specialties due to clinical findings and/ or complementary tests. Conclusion. This review concluded that protocol of recipient for renal transplant is viable using optional assessment by other medical/surgical specialties, taking into account clinical history and complementary tests as well as the integral evaluation of patients by transplant surgeon. With more clinical data we get could be possible increase the probability to predicting potential post transplant complications.

REFERENCES

1. Wolfe RA, Ashiby VB, Midford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients and dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725-30.

2. Kasiske BL, Cangro CB, Hariharan S, et al. The evaluation of renal transplant candidates: clinical practical guidelines. Am J Transplantation 2001; 1(Suppl. 2): 7-95.

3. Hoitsma A, Hillbrands L. Evaluation of renal transplant donor and recipient. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J (eds.). Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology. 2nd Ed. Spain: Mosby; 2004, p. 1071- 82.

4. Fritsche L, Vanrenterghem Y, Nordal KP, et al. Practice variations on the evaluation of adult candidates for cadaveric kidney transplantation: a survey of the European Transplant Centers. Transplantation 2000; 15(Suppl. 7): 1-85.

5. Cuéllar-González JV, et al. Evaluación del receptor de trasplante renal. Rev Invest Clin 2005; 57(2): 187-94.

6. Kasiske BL, Cangro CB, Hariharan S, Hricik DE, Kerman RH, Roth D, et al. The evaluation of renal transplant candidates: clinical practice guidelines. Am J Transplant 2001; 1(Suppl. 2): 1-95.

7. Martín P, Erraste P. Trasplante Renal. An Sist Sanit Navar 2006; 29(Supl. 2).

8. Danovitch GM. Trasplante Renal. 3rd. Ed. Los Angeles (Cal): Marbán; 2002.