Résultats et complications chirurgicales des troisièmes transplantations rénales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En cas d’échec de deux transplantations rénales consécutives, une troisième transplantation améliore la survie des patients inscrits sur liste d’attente. Les résultats fonctionnels et les complications chirurgicales des troisièmes transplantations rénales restent peu connus. Nous avons analysé les résultats des 100 dernières troisièmes transplantations rénales réalisées dans notre centre entre janvier 2000 et août 2018. Les données, relatives aux donneurs et aux receveurs, ont été extraites de façon rétrospective des dossiers médicaux et de la base de données prospective DIVAT (données informatisées et validées en transplantation). Les variables continues sont exprimées en moyennes, médianes, premiers et troisièmes quartiles (médiane, [Q1 ;Q3]). Les variables catégoriques sont exprimées en pourcentages. La survie des patients et des transplants a été calculée selon la méthode de Kaplan-Meier. L’âge moyen des receveurs était de 46,4 ans (47, [36 ;53]). Trente-cinq pour cent avaient une insuffisance rénale due à une uropathie malformative. L’âge moyen des donneurs était de 48,2 ans (52, [39,75 ;58]) avec 63 % de donneurs à critères standards. La durée moyenne d’ischémie froide était de 22,4 heures (21, [16,5 ;29,2]). Le taux de mortalité chirurgicale était de 2 % et le taux de complications chirurgicales était de 45 %. La survie des troisièmes transplants rénaux à 5 ans et 10 ans était de 73,1 % et 58,8 %. Le taux de mortalité avec un transplant fonctionnel était de 18 %. Une troisième transplantation rénale offre des résultats fonctionnels satisfaisants mais reste associée à une forte morbi-mortalité avec un taux de décès avec un transplant fonctionnel conséquent. 4. After two consecutive kidney transplant failures, a third kidney transplantation improves survival for patients on the waiting list. The surgical outcomes and complications of third kidney transplantations remain poorly known. We analyzed the last 100 third kidney transplantations performed in our center between January 2000 and August 2018. The data, relating to donors and recipients, were extracted retrospectively from medical records and from the prospective DIVAT database (computerized and validated data in transplantation). Continuous variables are expressed as means, medians, first and third quartiles (median, [Q1;Q3]). Categorical variables are expressed as percentages. Patient and transplant survivals were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Mean age of recipients was 46.4 years (47, [36;53]). Thirty-five percent had kidney failure due to urinary tract malformations. Mean age of donors was 48.2 years (52, [39.75; 58]) with 63% of donors with standard criteria. Mean cold ischemia time was 22.4 hours (21, [16.5; 29.2]). Surgical mortality rate was 2% and surgical complication rate was 45%. Third kidney transplants survival was 73.1% and 58.8% at 5 years and 10 years. Mortality rate with a functioning transplant was 18%. A third kidney transplant offers satisfactory functional outcomes but remains associated with high morbi-mortality and a significant death rate with a functioning transplant. 4.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".