Comparing the Frequency of Lymphoceles Which Needed Intervention in Recipients of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Kidney Transplants
Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare the frequency of lymphoceles that needed intervention in recipients who received kidneys from living versus deceased donors.
Materials and methods: The records of all patients who underwent kidney transplantation at the Labbafinejad Hospital from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed to determine the incidence of lymphoceles that needed intervention for management.
Results: From March 2012 to April 2021, 1752 patients received kidney transplantation in Labbafinejad Hospital including 975 transplantations from living donors and 777 transplantations from deceased donors. Symptomatic lymphoceles were observed postoperatively in 23 patients. Symptoms included compressive effect on the ureter, hydroureteronephrosis of the transplanted kidney, frequency, urinary retention, infection, abdominal discomfort, or rise in serum creatinine. Out of 23 patients who needed intervention for symptomatic lymphocele, 15 patients were recipients of living donors and 8 patients were recipients of deceased donors [1.53% versus 1.03%, P=.40]. Intervention consisted of open surgical drainage in 6 patients [4 recipients of living donors and 2 recipients of deceased donors], and nephrostomy insertion in 17 patients. Open operation was necessary in 5 (47%) patients in whom arterial anastomosis was made to the internal iliac artery versus 1 (9%) patient in whom the anastomosis was not made to the internal iliac artery (P=0.15).
Conclusion: Symptomatic lymphoceles which needed intervention were observed in low frequency (1.31%). Most cases can be managed by endoscopic drainage without relapse. Type of donation had no relationship with the need for open or endoscopic intervention in lymphoceles. A higher proportion of open surgeries to control lymphocele were observed in recipients in whom the internal iliac artery was used for arterial anastomosis however the difference was not statistically significant.
- lymphocele; kidney transplantation; living donor; deceased donor; postoperative complications
How to Cite
1. Lucan CV, Jurchis I, Suciu M, Selicean SE, Buttice S. Modern lymphatic dissection techniques for preventing post renal transplant lymphocele. Clujul medical (1957). 2017;90(4):416-9.
2. Morris PJ, Yadav RV, Kincaid-Smith P, Anderton J, Hare WS, Johnson N, et al. Renal artey stenosis in renal transplantation. The Medical journal of Australia. 1971;1(24):1255-7.
3. Simforoosh N, Tabibi A, Rad HM, Gholamrezaie HR. Comparison Between Bipolar Lymphatic Vessels Cautery and Suture Ligature in Prevention of Postrenal Transplant Lymphocele Formation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Experimental and clinical transplantation : official journal of the Middle East Society for Organ Transplantation. 2019;17(1):26-30.
4. Nelson EW, Gross ME, Mone MC, Hansen HJ, Sheng X, Cannon KM, et al. Does ultrasonic energy for surgical dissection reduce the incidence of renal transplant lymphocele? Transplantation proceedings. 2011;43(10):3755-9.
5. Sansalone CV, Aseni P, Minetti E, Di Benedetto F, Rossetti O, Manoochehri F, et al. Is lymphocele in renal transplantation an avoidable complication? American journal of surgery. 2000;179(3):182-5.
6. Golriz M, Klauss M, Zeier M, Mehrabi A. Prevention and management of lymphocele formation following kidney transplantation. Transplantation reviews (Orlando, Fla). 2017;31(2):100-5.
7. Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Javanmard B, Kashi AH, Soltani MH, et al. Living Unrelated Versus Related Kidney Transplantation: A 25-Year Experience with 3716 Cases. Urology journal. 2016;13(1):2546-51.
8. Pengel LH, Liu LQ, Morris PJ. Do wound complications or lymphoceles occur more often in solid organ transplant recipients on mTOR inhibitors? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. 2011;24(12):1216-30.
9. Vítko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, Dantal J, Kuypers D, Winkler M, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons. 2005;5(10):2521-30.
10. Mazzucchi E, Souza AA, Nahas WC, Antonopoulos IM, Piovesan AC, Arap S. Surgical complications after renal transplantation in grafts with multiple arteries. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2005;31(2):125-30.
11. Saidi RF, Wertheim JA, Ko DS, Elias N, Martin H, Delmonico FL, et al. Impact of donor kidney recovery method on lymphatic complications in kidney transplantation. Transplantation proceedings. 2008;40(4):1054-5.
12. Fakhr Yasseri AM, Namdari F, Gooran S, Ahmadi A, Dehghani S, Asadi M, et al. Living versus deceased kidney transplantation: Comparison of complications. Urologia. 2021;88(3):185-9.
13. Lima ML, Cotrim CA, Moro JC, Miyaoka R, D'Ancona CA. Laparoscopic treatment of lymphoceles after renal transplantation. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2012;38(2):215-21; discussion 21.
14. Lucewicz A, Wong G, Lam VW, Hawthorne WJ, Allen R, Craig JC, et al. Management of primary symptomatic lymphocele after kidney transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2011;92(6):663-73.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- Just Accepted/7050 Downloaded: 0 times