Should a Living Donor Renal Graft be Removed Due To Prolonged Delayed Function? A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Delayed graft function (DGF) is defined as failure of the transplanted kidney to function in the early -post-transplant period. DGF is a rare complication after living donor kidney transplant and is most common after deceased donor kidney transplant, probably due to prolonged warm and cold ischemia times during retrieval. Most cases of DGF resolve spontaneously within days to weeks. There are very few reported cases in the literature of DGF lasting over 4 weeks. We present a case that resolved after 55 days. The recipient subsequently achieved normal renal function. CASE REPORT Our patient was a 52-year-old man with end-stage renal disease who underwent a second living donor renal transplant. The donor was his son, with whom he had 1 antigen mismatch. Postoperative day 1, the patient developed anuria and failed to improve with fluids and diuretics. Investigations ruled out common causes of renal dysfunction (rejection, ischemia), but failed to disclose the cause of this condition. After an extended period of watchful waiting, the graft function returned, reaching normal creatinine and urine output levels. CONCLUSIONS DGF after living donor kidney transplantation is rare, and few cases lasting more than a month have been reported. Before diagnosing DGF, other causes of renal dysfunction (rejection, ischemia, medication adverse effects) must be ruled out. In the absence of these, expectant management is appropriate and full graft recovery can be expected, even with anuria and hemodialysis.

Positive surgical margins in soft tissue sarcoma treated with preoperative radiation: is a postoperative boost necessary?

PURPOSE: For patients with an extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with preoperative radiotherapy and surgically excised with positive margins, we retrospectively reviewed whether a postoperative radiation boost reduced the risk of local recurrence (LR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 216 patients with positive margins after resection of an extremity STS treated between 1986 and 2003 were identified from our institution's prospectively collected database. Patient demographics, radiation therapy parameters including timing and dose, classification of positive margin status, reasons for not administering a postoperative boost, and oncologic outcome were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 216 patients with a positive surgical margin, 52 patients were treated with preoperative radiation therapy alone (50 Gy), whereas 41 received preoperative radiation therapy plus a postoperative boost (80% received 16 Gy postoperatively for a total of 66 Gy). There was no difference in baseline tumor characteristics between the two groups. Six of 52 patients in the group receiving preoperative radiation alone developed a LR compared with 9 of 41 in the boost group. Five-year estimated LR-free survivals were 90.4% and 73.8%, respectively (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: We found that including the postoperative radiation boost after preoperative radiation and a margin-positive excision did not provide an advantage in preventing LR for patients treated with external beam radiotherapy. Given that higher radiation doses placed patients at greater risk for late complications such as fracture, fibrosis, edema, and joint stiffness, judicious avoidance of the postoperative boost while maintaining an equivalent rate of local control can reduce the risk of these difficult-to-treat morbidities.