Intrarenal Resistive Index after Renal Transplantation.


The intrarenal resistive index is routinely measured in many renaltransplantation centers for assessment of renal-allograft status, although the value of the resistive index remains unclear.


In a single-center, prospective study involving 321 renal-allograft recipients, we measured the resistive index at baseline, at the time of protocol-specified renal-allograft biopsies (3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation), and at the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction. A total of 1124 renal-allograft resistive-index measurements were included in the analysis. All patients were followed for at least 4.5 years after transplantation.


Allograft recipients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 had higher mortality than those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 5.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14 to 12.64; P<0.001]; 3.46 [95% CI, 1.39 to 8.56; P=0.007]; and 4.12 [95% CI, 1.26 to 13.45; P=0.02], respectively). The need for dialysis did not differ significantly between patients with a resistive index of at least 0.80 and those with a resistive index of less than 0.80 at 3, 12, and 24 months after transplantation (hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.39 to 9.82; P=0.42]; 0.44 [95% CI, 0.05 to 3.72; P=0.45]; and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.20 to 8.82; P=0.76], respectively). At protocol-specified biopsy time points, the resistive index was not associated with renal-allograft histologic features. Older recipient age was the strongest determinant of a higher resistive index (P<0.001). At the time of biopsies performed because of graft dysfunction, antibody-mediated rejection or acute tubular necrosis, as compared with normal biopsy results, was associated with a higher resistive index (0.87±0.12 vs. 0.78±0.14 [P=0.05], and 0.86±0.09 vs. 0.78±0.14 [P=0.007], respectively).


The resistive index, routinely measured at predefined time points after transplantation, reflects characteristics of the recipient but not those of the graft.


Souirce: NEJM



Nerve regeneration across cryopreserved allografts from cadaveric donors: a novel approach for peripheral nerve reconstruction

Clinical article



The use of allografts from cadaveric donors has attracted renewed interest in recent years, and pretreatment with cryopreservation and immunosuppression methods has been investigated to maximize axonal regrowth and minimize allograft rejection. The authors wanted to assess the outcome of treatments of brachial plexus stretch injuries with cryopreserved allografts from cadaveric donors in nonimmunosuppressed patients.


Ten patients with brachial plexus lesions were submitted to electromyography (EMG) testing 1 and 3 months after a traumatic event and 1 week before surgery to localize and identify the type of lesion. Intraoperative EMG recordings were performed for intraoperative monitoring to select the best surgical strategy, and postoperative EMG was used to follow up patients and determine surgical outcomes. If nerve action potentials (NAPs) were present intraoperatively, neurolysis was performed, whereas muscular/nerve neurotization was performed if NAPs were absent. Cryopreserved allografts obtained from selected cadaveric donors and provided by the tissue bank of Treviso were used for nerve reconstruction in patients who were not treated with immunosuppressive drugs.


The surgical strategy was selected according to the type and site of the nerve lesion and on the basis of IOM results: 14 cryopreserved allografts were used for 7 muscular neurotizations and for 7 nerve neurotizations, and 5 neurolysis procedures were performed. All of the patients had regained motor function at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups.


Some variables may affect functional recovery after allograft surgery, and the outcome of peripheral nerve reconstruction is more favorable when patients are carefully evaluated and selected for the surgery. The authors demonstrated that using cryopreserved allografts from cadaveric donors is a valid surgical strategy to restore function of the damaged nerve without the need for any immunosuppressive treatments. This approach offers new perspectives on procedures for extensive reconstruction of brachial and lumbosacral plexuses.

Source: JNS