Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Machado, Christiano
Data de Publicação: 2013
Outros Autores: Malheiros, Denise Maria Avancini Costa, Adamy, Ari, Santos, Luiz Sergio, da Silva Filho, Agenor Ferreira, Nahas, William Carlos, Lemos, Francine Brambate Carvalhinho
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/76791
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: Prolonged warm ischemia time and increased intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy could enhance renal ischemia reperfusion injury. For this reason, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be associated with a slower graft function recovery. However, an adequate protective response may balance the ischemia reperfusion damage. This study investigated whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy modified the protective response of renal tissue during kidney transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing live renal transplantation were prospectively analyzed and divided into two groups based on the donor nephrectomy approach used: 1) the control group, recipients of open donor nephrectomy (n = 29), and 2) the study group, recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 26). Graft biopsies were obtained at two time points: T-1 = after warm ischemia time and T+1 = 45 minutes after kidney reperfusion. The samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for the Bcl-2 and HO-1 proteins and by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the mRNA expression of Bcl-2, HO-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: The area under the curve for creatinine and delayed graft function were similar in both the laparoscopic and open groups. There was no difference in the protective gene expression between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups. The protein expression of HO-1 and Bcl-2 were similar between the open and laparoscopic groups. Furthermore, the gene expression of B-cell lymphoma 2 correlated with the warm ischemia time in the open group (p = 0.047) and that of vascular endothelial growth factor with the area under the curve for creatinine in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The postoperative renal function and protective factor expression were similar between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy. These findings ensure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy utilization in renal transplantation.
id USP-19_73af1997f37c5d1ebefb370842a46a66
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/76791
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomyOBJECTIVE: Prolonged warm ischemia time and increased intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy could enhance renal ischemia reperfusion injury. For this reason, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be associated with a slower graft function recovery. However, an adequate protective response may balance the ischemia reperfusion damage. This study investigated whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy modified the protective response of renal tissue during kidney transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing live renal transplantation were prospectively analyzed and divided into two groups based on the donor nephrectomy approach used: 1) the control group, recipients of open donor nephrectomy (n = 29), and 2) the study group, recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 26). Graft biopsies were obtained at two time points: T-1 = after warm ischemia time and T+1 = 45 minutes after kidney reperfusion. The samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for the Bcl-2 and HO-1 proteins and by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the mRNA expression of Bcl-2, HO-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: The area under the curve for creatinine and delayed graft function were similar in both the laparoscopic and open groups. There was no difference in the protective gene expression between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups. The protein expression of HO-1 and Bcl-2 were similar between the open and laparoscopic groups. Furthermore, the gene expression of B-cell lymphoma 2 correlated with the warm ischemia time in the open group (p = 0.047) and that of vascular endothelial growth factor with the area under the curve for creatinine in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The postoperative renal function and protective factor expression were similar between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy. These findings ensure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy utilization in renal transplantation.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2013-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/7679110.1590/clin.v68i4.76791Clinics; Vol. 68 No. 4 (2013); 483-488Clinics; v. 68 n. 4 (2013); 483-488Clinics; Vol. 68 Núm. 4 (2013); 483-4881980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/76791/80653Machado, ChristianoMalheiros, Denise Maria Avancini CostaAdamy, AriSantos, Luiz Sergioda Silva Filho, Agenor FerreiraNahas, William CarlosLemos, Francine Brambate Carvalhinhoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2014-03-21T18:32:40Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/76791Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2014-03-21T18:32:40Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
title Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
spellingShingle Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Machado, Christiano
title_short Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
title_full Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
title_fullStr Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
title_full_unstemmed Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
title_sort Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
author Machado, Christiano
author_facet Machado, Christiano
Malheiros, Denise Maria Avancini Costa
Adamy, Ari
Santos, Luiz Sergio
da Silva Filho, Agenor Ferreira
Nahas, William Carlos
Lemos, Francine Brambate Carvalhinho
author_role author
author2 Malheiros, Denise Maria Avancini Costa
Adamy, Ari
Santos, Luiz Sergio
da Silva Filho, Agenor Ferreira
Nahas, William Carlos
Lemos, Francine Brambate Carvalhinho
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Machado, Christiano
Malheiros, Denise Maria Avancini Costa
Adamy, Ari
Santos, Luiz Sergio
da Silva Filho, Agenor Ferreira
Nahas, William Carlos
Lemos, Francine Brambate Carvalhinho
description OBJECTIVE: Prolonged warm ischemia time and increased intra-abdominal pressure caused by pneumoperitoneum during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy could enhance renal ischemia reperfusion injury. For this reason, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be associated with a slower graft function recovery. However, an adequate protective response may balance the ischemia reperfusion damage. This study investigated whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy modified the protective response of renal tissue during kidney transplantation. METHODS: Patients undergoing live renal transplantation were prospectively analyzed and divided into two groups based on the donor nephrectomy approach used: 1) the control group, recipients of open donor nephrectomy (n = 29), and 2) the study group, recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 26). Graft biopsies were obtained at two time points: T-1 = after warm ischemia time and T+1 = 45 minutes after kidney reperfusion. The samples were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for the Bcl-2 and HO-1 proteins and by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the mRNA expression of Bcl-2, HO-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. RESULTS: The area under the curve for creatinine and delayed graft function were similar in both the laparoscopic and open groups. There was no difference in the protective gene expression between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups. The protein expression of HO-1 and Bcl-2 were similar between the open and laparoscopic groups. Furthermore, the gene expression of B-cell lymphoma 2 correlated with the warm ischemia time in the open group (p = 0.047) and that of vascular endothelial growth factor with the area under the curve for creatinine in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The postoperative renal function and protective factor expression were similar between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy. These findings ensure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy utilization in renal transplantation.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/76791
10.1590/clin.v68i4.76791
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/76791
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/clin.v68i4.76791
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/76791/80653
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 68 No. 4 (2013); 483-488
Clinics; v. 68 n. 4 (2013); 483-488
Clinics; Vol. 68 Núm. 4 (2013); 483-488
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222759839596544