Is there a relationship between plantar foot sensation and static balance, physical performance, fear of falling, and quality of life in hemodialysis patients?

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between plantar foot sensation and static balance, physical performance, fear of falling, and quality of life in hemodialysis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 24 hemodialysis patients and 20 healthy volunteers. Light touch-pressure sensation (Semmes Weinstein Monofilament test kit), two-point discrimination sensation (esthesiometer) and vibration sensation (128 Hz diapason) were used to evaluate plantar foot sensation. Static balance was assessed by the one-leg standing balance test, physical performance by the Timed Up and Go test, fear of falling with the Fall Efficacy Scale, and quality of life with the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index Dialysis Version. FINDINGS: There was a significant difference in plantar foot sensation, static balance, and physical performance of the patients compared to the healthy controls (P < 0.05). There was a strong correlation between static balance and physical performance with foot sensation in the hemodialysis patients (P < 0.05). There was also a strong correlation between static balance, physical performance, and fear of falling in hemodialysis patients (P < 0.05). The correlation between static balance, physical performance, and quality of life in the hemodialysis patients was strong (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The most important result of this study is that light touch-pressure sensation, vibration sensation, two-point discrimination sensation, static balance, and physical performance, all of which involve the activity of cutaneous sensory receptors on the sole of the foot, are reduced in individuals who undergo hemodialysis. The findings of this study suggest potential rehabilitation strategies that could be applied to this patient group.

Analysis of Panel Reactive Antibodies in Renal Transplant Recipients Detected by Luminex: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The role of panel reactive antibody has gained universal acceptance in solid-organ transplant. This parameter is used to gauge the level of sensitization of prospective solid-organ recipients. More than one-third of patients on wait lists for kidney transplant are sensitized. Most have previously formed donor-specific and non-donor-specific serum antibodies and/or positive crossmatch by complement-dependent cytotoxicity and/or flow cytometry. We present the rate of positivity at our institution for human leukocyte antigen antibodies and describe the condensation of antibodies in human leukocyte antigens for renal pretransplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2012, six hundred twenty consecutive renal transplant recipients on the wait list at the Baskent University were evaluated for this retrospective study. Panel reactive antibody screening and definition tests were studied with Luminex assays for the combination of class I (A, B, C) and class II antigens (DR, DQ). RESULTS: We found a panel reactive antibody screening positivity in 20.4% of our patients on renal transplant waiting list. Panel reactive antibody defining tests were meaningful in 12.2% of the whole list. We observed that only panel reactive antibody class I positivity was seen in 2.2%, only panel reactive antibody class II positivity was seen in 2.7%, and both panel reactive antibody class I and class II positivities were seen in 7.2% of the defining tests. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated risk of sensitization for patients with a living donor is determined from the combined results of the crossmatch with the donor and those of the recipient's panel reactive and donor-specific antibodies. Compared with complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch, Luminex assays provide greater sensitivity and specificity in detection of donor-specific antibodies.

Effects of a Novel Peritoneal Dialysis: The Open Versus Laparoscopic Preperitoneal Tunneling Technique.

The key to achieving adequate continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is that a functioning catheter should enable unrestricted inflow and outflow of the dialysate liquid from the peritoneal cavity with an intact peritoneal membrane. Despite its advantages, complications, such as outflow obstruction, catheter-related infection, and dialysate leakage are still problematic. Various laparoscopic techniques for catheter placement have been investigated. The main purpose of this study was to compare the laparoscopic and open surgical peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion techniques in a retrospective manner according to catheter survival, complications and the safety of both techniques. The study included end stage renal disease patients in our hospital in whom a PD catheter was placed between 2007 and 2014. Patients were divided into two groups: the open technique (OT) group and the laparoscopic preperitoneal tunneling approach (LA) group. Extracted data included patient demographics, operative data, catheter-related complications and follow-up data. Sixty-nine patients were enrolled into the study. CAPD catheters were placed into 35 patients via LA and 34 via OT. We found that the LA group patients had better survival rates compared with the OT group, especially the long-term survivals. All of the CAPD-related complications, (peritonitis, malposition, outflow obstruction, leakage) were lower in the LA group. However, the peritonitis, malposition and groin hernia rates were also statistically significantly lower in the LA group. When compared with the published data, we recommend laparoscopic CAPD catheter placement with a preperitoneal tunneling technique. The technique is safe and offers a better outcome.