Protective response in renal transplantation: no clinical or molecular differences between open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
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 |