No abstract

Objective Endovascular treatment through either percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) alone or stenting has been previously used as a treatment for transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS). This review aimed to investigate the results of endovascular treatment for renal artery stenosis in transplanted kidneys as compared with the outcomes of interventions, medical management, and graft survival in non-TRAS patients. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Scopus was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in which studies that reported outcomes of the treatment of TRAS via the endoluminal approach were identified, and their results were meta-analyzed. Results Fifty-four studies with a total of 1522 patients were included. A significant reduction of serum creatinine level was found, favoring the stenting group, with a mean difference of 0.68 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–1.19; Z=2.60, p=0.0009). Comparison of pre- and post-intervention values of any intervention revealed a significant decrease in overall serum creatinine level (0.65 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.40–0.90; Z=5.09, p=0.00001), overall blood pressure, with a mean difference of 11.12 mmHg (95% CI, 7.29–14.95; Z=5.59, p=0.00001), mean difference in the use of medications (0.77; 95% CI, 0.29–1.24; p=0.002), and peak systolic velocity (190.05; 95% CI, 128.41–251.69; p<0.00001). The comparison of serum creatinine level between endovascular interventions and best medical therapy favored endovascular intervention, with a mean difference of 0.23 mg/dL (95% CI, 0.14–0.32; Z=5.07, p<0.00001). Graft survival was similar between the treated patients and those without TRAS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.75–1.28; p=0.091). The overall pooled success rate was 89%, and the overall complication rate was 10.4%, with the most prevalent complication being arterial dissection. Conclusion The endovascular treatment of TRAS improves graft preservation and renal function and hemodynamic parameters. PTA + stenting appears to be a more effective option to PTA alone in the stabilization of renal function, with additional benefits from decreased restenosis rates. Further high-quality studies could expand on these findings.

Objective: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) remains the definitive treatment for patients afflicted with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) have been adapted as a bridge to transplantation, allowing partial normalization of portal pressure and associated symptom improvement. Conflicting evidence exists on TIPS’ impact on operative procedures. This study aimed to analyze available evidence on patients who underwent OLT with prior TIPS compared to OLT alone with the intent to determine TIPS’ impact on surgical outcomes. Material and Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies comparing TIPS + OLT versus OLT alone in patients with ESLD. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Thirteen studies were included. Operative time, packed red blood cells transfusions, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, dialysis, serum creatinine levels, ascites, vascular complications, bleeding revisions, reintervention, and other complications rates were similar between both groups. Fresh frozen plasma transfusion -2.88 units (-5.42, -0.35; p= 0.03), was lower in the TIPS + OLT group. Conclusion: Our study found TIPS can be safely employed without having detrimental impacts on OLT outcomes, furthermore, these findings also suggest TIPS does not increase bleeding or complications.

No abstract

Introduction: Emergent urinary decompression through percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or ureteric stent (URS) remains a mainstay in the management of urethral calculi-related obstruction with associated signs of infection or renal injury. Available evidence has shown similar performance, and current guidelines endorse both treatment strategies. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria up until August 2020. Studies included data on stone size and location, operative time, complications, length of stay, analgesic consumption, quality of life (QoL), and clinical outcomes between URS and PCN. Results: Ten studies with a total population of 772, of which 420 were treated with URS and 352 with PCN, were included. No statistical difference in operative time between both techniques was found. Nevertheless, length of stay in PCN was longer than in USR, with a mean difference of −1.87 days ((95% CI −2.69 to −1.06), Z=4.50, p=0.00001). No differences were found in the time to normalization of temperature or white blood cell counts. There were no significant differences in success rates, with an overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.60 ((95% CI 0.26 to −1.40), Z=1.17, p=0.24), or spontaneous passage after emergent drainage between groups. Complication rates ranged from 5% to 25% in URS and from 0% to 38% in PCN. In the studied population, out of the 157 patients from four studies describing complications, only 5% of URS procedures presented complications compared to 2% in PCN, showing a relatively low complication rate for either group (OR=2.07 (95% CI 0.89–4.84), Z=1.68, p=0.09). Differences in QoL were not significant. Conclusion: Both methods are equally effective, with no clear advantage for PCN over URS. Level of evidence: IV