RESUMO
The immunosuppression administered to renal transplant recipients to safeguard renal function elevates their susceptibility to renal cancer, which is estimated to be 15 times higher than in the general population. The current study aimed to analyze various aspects of native kidney renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in renal transplant recipients. This study involved a retrospective analysis of 11 patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC in native kidneys among renal transplant recipients at our institution since 1992. Our institutional incidence was 0.4%. Median age at presentation was 57 (49-60) years. The ratio of male: female was 10:1. Most patients were asymptomatic at presentation and native kidney disease before transplantation was undetermined. In our study, the median time interval between diagnosis of RCC and transplant was 9.1 (8.4-11.2) years. All patients underwent native kidney nephrectomy. Clear cell type was more common than papillary type, 3.5 (2.5-4.2). Ten patients were diagnosed with stage I disease and one patient had stage IV disease. Fuhrman nuclear grading revealed low grades in nine patients and three patients had Grade 3. Immunosuppressive therapy modification was done in nine patients. Meticulous follow-up of renal transplant patients is essential for earlier diagnosis and appropriate treatment of native kidney RCC in transplant recipients. Authors recommend every year follow-up in transplant recipients with special emphasis on ultrasound of native kidney.
RESUMO
The immunosuppression administered to renal transplant recipients to safeguard renal function elevates their susceptibility to renal cancer, which is estimated to be 15 times higher than in the general population. The current study aimed to analyze various aspects of native kidney renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in renal transplant recipients. This study involved a retrospective analysis of 11 patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC in native kidneys among renal transplant recipients at our institution since 1992. Our institutional incidence was 0.4%. Median age at presentation was 57 (49-60) years. The ratio of male: female was 10:1. Most patients were asymptomatic at presentation and native kidney disease before transplantation was undetermined. In our study, the median time interval between diagnosis of RCC and transplant was 9.1 (8.4-11.2) years. All patients underwent native kidney nephrectomy. Clear cell type was more common than papillary type, 3.5 (2.5-4.2). Ten patients were diagnosed with stage I disease and one patient had stage IV disease. Fuhrman nuclear grading revealed low grades in nine patients and three patients had Grade 3. Immunosuppressive therapy modification was done in nine patients. Meticulous follow-up of renal transplant patients is essential for earlier diagnosis and appropriate treatment of native kidney RCC in transplant recipients. Authors recommend every year follow-up in transplant recipients with special emphasis on ultrasound of native kidney.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: A single-use digital flexible ureteroscope (fURS) has become a cost-effective alternative option to reusable fURS. The requirement of large-diameter access sheath for passage of 9.5 Fr single-use fURS has not always achieved in the first attempt in all cases leading to stage stone clearance. Recently, two slimmest single-use digital disposable fURSs have been introduced by Bioradmedisys™ and Pusen™ to mitigate the accessibility problem, without or with small size access sheath. Primary objective was to compare in vivo performance and surgical outcomes with two single-use fURS: 7.5Fr Indoscope (Bioradmedisys™, Pune, India) and 7.5Fr Uscope PU3033A (Pusen, Zhuhai, China). METHODS: 60 patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) with < 2 cm renal stones were prospectively randomized into: Group A (30 patients) for Indoscope and Group B (30 patients) for Uscope PU3033A. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative parameters were evaluated. In vivo visibility and maneuverability were rated on 5-point Likert scale by the operating surgeon. At one-month stone clearance was assessed with ultrasound and X-ray KUB. Data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0. RESULTS: Patient demographics and stone characteristics were comparable in both groups. Indoscope had significantly higher visibility (p < 0.05) than Uscope; however, the maneuverability scores were comparable between both the groups (p > 0.05). 28 patients in group A and 26 patients in group B achieved complete stone clearance (p = 0.38). Scope failure was observed in 1 case of group B (p = 0.31). CONCLUSION: We conclude that 7.5Fr Indoscope has better vision than 7.5Fr Uscope and the rest of in vivo performances were comparable with similar outcomes and complications among both scopes.
