Spousal versus living unrelated renal transplantation: A retrospective analysis of allograft outcomes

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorSolak I.
dc.contributor.authorSezer T.O.
dc.contributor.authorToz H.
dc.contributor.authorTatar E.
dc.contributor.authorIsayev C.
dc.contributor.authorFirat O.
dc.contributor.authorHoscoskun C.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-26T21:46:53Z
dc.date.available2019-10-26T21:46:53Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the outcomes of spousal and living unrelated donor (LUD) allografts. Patients and methods: The 378 ABO-compatible living and cadaveric kidney transplantations between February 2005 and August 2010 included 25 wife-to-husband (group 1), 15 husband-to-wife (group 2), and 20 LUD cases (group 3). Donor nephrectomy was performed by open surgery. Induction therapy with antithymocyte globulin or anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibody was followed by maintenance regimens using cyclosporine (CsA) or tacrolimus (Tac) plus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and corticosteroids. We compared spousal donor and LUDs in terms of clinical characteristics as well as graft and patient survival rates. Results: Fifty-six (93.3%) patients underwent induction therapy with either antithymocyte globulin (n = 30) or anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibody (n = 26). Maintenance immunosuppression was administered with Tac + MMF (n = 37; 61.6%) or CsA + MMF (n = 23; 38.4) with corticosteroids. Mean follow-up was 34 ± 16 months. There were four graft losses and five patient deaths. There were no significant differences between spousal and living unrelated transplants in terms of clinical characteristics or biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed 3-year patient survival rates of 94%, 100%, and 88% in group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively (P >.05). Overall graft survival rates were 94%, 100%, and 77% in group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively (P >.05). Graft and patient survival rates were similar at 3 years for wife-to-husband, husband-to-wife, or LUDs. Conclusion: In conclusion, family members should be encouraged as LUD or spousal donors, based on similar patient and graft survival rates. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.05.069en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1712en_US
dc.identifier.issn0041-1345
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid22841250en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1710en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.05.069
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/18580
dc.identifier.volume44en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTransplantation Proceedingsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryKonferans Öğesi - Uluslararası - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titleSpousal versus living unrelated renal transplantation: A retrospective analysis of allograft outcomesen_US
dc.typeConference Objecten_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu