Protection of urteteroneocystoanastamosis with platelet-rich plasma in kidney transplanted recipients

Aibolat S. Smagulov, Myltykbay S. Rysmakhanov, Bazylbek S. Zhakiyev, Yerlan B. Sultangereyev, Nadiar Maratovich Mussin

2022

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.4285/atw2022.f-2403
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: One of the most common problems after kidney transplantation is urological complications. Urine leakage is the most common early urological complication after kidney transplantation. The aim of the study was to study the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on urteteroneocystoanastamosis (UNCA) in a recipient after kidney transplantation. Methods: This method was applied to 14 recipients with standard UNCA by Lich-Gregoir. Before the manipulation, 50 mL of venous blood was taken from each recipient. The blood is placed in test tubes with a sodium citrate content of 3.8%. The tubes were centrifuged twice; 10 minutes at 2,400 rpm and 15 minutes at 3,600 rpm. After the first centrifugation, the middle layer with leukocytes and platelets was collected and transferred to other test tubes using a long needle. After the second centrifugation, the platelet count was 125000010(9)/L35000010(9)/L platelets and increased 6.4 times compared to the initial amount. Before use, PRP was activated with a 10% solution of calcium chloride and a gel-like mass was obtained. Then the PRP gel was applied to the UNCA line in the recipients. Results: In all cases, there were no early urological complications. The graft function was satisfactory. There were no reanastomosis during and after surgery in the recipients. Conclusions: UNCA using PRP-gel is a highly effective, cost-effective method of preventing urological complications. However, this method of surgical treatment does not provide a 100% guarantee of the success of the operation, which requires additional study for the application of this method of treatment.