Our findings suggest that the frequency of emergency drainage in elderly patients with poor performance status has increased in recent years, at least in our rural area of Japan. Preventing calculous formation and urinary tract infection in individuals with poor performance status will be of considerable importance in the future.
Objective: The standard protocol of antibiotic prophylaxis in radical prostatectomy remains to be established. We retrospectively compared the occurrence of perioperative infections following radical prostatectomy between two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods: This study included 106 cases of radical retropubic prostatectomy managed on the clinical pathways. Two different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis were used in otherwise identical pathways. Between January and December 2004, 50 patients received a second generation cephem, cefotiam, for 4 days, beginning 30 min before surgery (4-day group), whilst between December 2004 and July 2005, only two doses of cefotiam were given on the day of operation in 56 patients (1-day group). The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and remote infection (RI) was retrospectively investigated. Results: Superficial incisional SSI occurred in one (1.8%) patient in the 1-day group, whereas no patient in the 4-day group developed SSI. No RI was observed in either the 1-day or 4-day group. Intravenous antibiotics were administered besides the pathway in a patient in the 1-day group because unexplained fever more than 38°C continued postoperative day (POD) 2 through POD 4 without signs of SSI or RI. Excluding this case, postoperative more than 38°C was rare and transient after POD 2. Conclusion: The incidence of SSI and RI was low and not significantly different between the 1-day and 4-day groups. Therefore, the 1-day protocol of prophylactic antibiotic treatment seems adequate for preventing perioperative infections in radical prostatectomy.
These findings indicate that the expression of osteopontin is increased in BBB-damaged vessels in hypertensive SHRSP compared with that in vessels without BBB impairment in WKY rats, suggesting a role for osteopontin in BBB function.
Introduction
Latent mesangial immunoglobulin A (IgA) deposition in the donated kidney has been investigated in the context of kidney transplantation. However, few studies have examined the impact of mesangial expansion accompanied with IgA deposition. Therefore, we investigated the effects of latent IgA deposition and mesangial expansion on transplant prognosis following living‐donor kidney transplantation.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 68 consecutive adult living‐donor kidney transplantations performed at Kagawa University Hospital. Biopsies were performed at pre‐implantation and at one yr after transplantation.
Results
Twenty kidneys exhibited latent IgA deposition in pre‐implantation biopsies, including 14 with mesangial expansion. Latent IgA deposition was not associated with renal function or donor urinalysis after donation, irrespective of mesangial expansion. Latent IgA deposition was not significantly associated with graft survival rate, allograft function, abnormal urinalysis, or the recurrence of IgA nephropathy, irrespective of mesangial expansion. At one yr after transplantation, IgA deposition had disappeared in 14/20 allografts. Estimated glomerular function rate >40 mL/min/1.73 m2 was significantly associated with the disappearance of IgA deposition.
Conclusions
The present study showed that latent IgA deposition from the donor kidney, irrespective of mesangial expansion, does not affect transplant prognosis following living‐donor kidney transplantation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.