| | Branch renal artery repair with cold perfusion protectionPresented at the Thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, Jan 17-20, 2007. Received 15 January 2007; accepted 11 April 2007. published online 03 August 2007. PurposeThis retrospective review describes the use and clinical outcome of cold perfusion protection during branch renal artery (RA) repair in 77 consecutive patients. MethodsFrom July 1987 through November 2006, 874 patients had open operative RA repair to 1312 kidneys. Seventy-seven patients (62 women, 15 men; mean age, 44 ± 17 years) had branch RA reconstruction using ex vivo or in situ cold perfusion protection for 78 kidneys. Demographic data and surgical technique were examined. Blood pressure response and renal function were estimated. Patency of repair was determined by angiography and renal duplex ultrasound (RDUS) imaging. Primary RA patency was estimated by life-table methods. ResultsSeventy-eight RAs were repaired using ex vivo (49 kidneys) or in situ (29 kidneys) cold perfusion protection. Bilateral RA repair was performed in eight patients, with 13 repairs to solitary kidneys. RA disease included aneurysm (RAA) in 50, fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) in 37, atherosclerosis in 5, and arteritis in 2; 16 patients had both FMD and RAA. Hypertension was present in 93.5% (mean blood pressure, 184 ± 35/107 ± 19 mm Hg; mean of 1.9 ± 1.1 drugs). RA repair included bypass using saphenous vein in 69, hypogastric artery in 3, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in 2, composite vein/PTFE in 2, cephalic vein in 1, or aneurysmorrhaphy in 1. The eight bilateral RA repairs were staged. One patient required bilateral cold perfusion protection. One planned nephrectomy was performed at the time of contralateral ex vivo reconstruction. No primary nephrectomies were required for intended reconstruction. Each RA reconstruction required branch dissection and reconstruction (mean of 2.8 ± 1.6 branches were repaired). Mean cold ischemia time was 125 ± 40 minutes. Each kidney was reconstructed in an orthotopic fashion. Five early failures of repair required three nephrectomies and one operative revision. Based on postoperative angiography or RDUS, or both, primary patency of RA repair at 12 months was 85% ± 5%; assisted primary patency was 93% ± 4%. Among patients with preoperative hypertension, 15% were cured, 65% were improved, and 20% were considered failed. Early renal function was improved in 35%, unchanged in 48%, and worse in 17%. Four patients had perioperative acute tubular necrosis. No patient progressed to dialysis-dependence. ConclusionBoth ex vivo and in situ cold perfusion protection extend the safe renal ischemia time for complex branch RA repair and avoid the need for nephrectomy. Percutaneous transluminal renal artery angioplasty (PTRA), with or without endoluminal stents, has been adopted as the preferred treatment of renovascular disease in many centers despite the absence of supporting class I evidence. Technical success and periprocedural morbidity appear optimal when PTRA is applied to stenotic lesions secondary to atherosclerosis or medial fibroplasia of the main renal artery.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Less favorable technical and long-term results have been observed when catheter-based intervention has been applied to stenotic or aneurysmal lesions involving renal artery branches.7, 8, 9 Consequently, a significant proportion of patients now chosen for operative repair often require branch renal artery exposure and reconstruction. These procedures may require complex surgical reconstruction culminating in prolonged warm renal ischemia. Available data suggest that when >30 to 40 minutes of warm ischemia are required for revascularization, measures to protect renal function should be instituted.10, 11, 12, 13 Although several pharmacologic therapies have been promoted to provide renal preservation, no therapy to date has equaled hypothermia for protection when renal ischemia approaches 2 hours.10, 14, 15, 16, 17 Both surface cooling and various methods of perfusion hypothermia have been proposed; however, the advantages of each are not well-defined.10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 In light of these uncertainties, this retrospective report describes our institution’s experience with complex renal artery repair requiring hypothermic preservation. The intent of the review is to describe (1) the renal artery lesions managed by these techniques, (2) the methods and techniques of renal protection, (3) the hypertension and renal function response to operative management, and (4) the patency of renal artery repair. Methods  Patient population Patients who underwent renal artery reconstruction were identified from an Institutional Review Board-approved vascular registry. From July 1987 through November 2006, 874 patients had open operative renal artery repair to 1312 kidneys at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. Those patients who had reconstruction using cold perfusion protection were selected. Branch renal artery reconstruction was done in 77 consecutive patients (62 women, 15 men; mean age, 44 ± 17 years) using either ex vivo or in situ cold perfusion protection for 78 kidneys. Patient demographics and preoperative clinical characteristics are depicted in Table I. The hospital records, imaging studies, and clinic records for all patients were reviewed. Demographic data, surgical technique, perioperative morbidity, and mortality were examined. Postoperative patency of repair was determined by angiography or renal duplex ultrasound (RDUS) imaging, or both. | | |  | Patients (n = 77) | N or mean ± SD |  |
|---|
 | Age (year) | 44 ± 17 |  |  | Gender | |  |  | Male | 15 |  |  | Female | 62 |  |  | Race | |  |  | White | 63 |  |  | African American | 11 |  |  | Other | 3 |  |  | Hypertension | |  |  | Pre-op SBP (mm Hg) | 184 ± 35 |  |  | Pre-op DBP (mm Hg) | 107 ± 19 |  |  | Pre-op BP meds (n) | 1.9 ± 1.1 |  |  | Renal function | |  |  | Pre-op serum creatinine | 1.03 ± 0.43 |  |  | Pre-op EGFR (ml/[min · 1.73 m2]) | 79 ± 30 |  | | | |
Measured clinical outcomes included blood pressure, number of antihypertensive medications, and serum creatinine (SCr). Analysis was performed using data from the preoperative assessment, discharge assessment, and the latest postoperative follow-up. Blood pressure response was estimated as previously described.24 Preoperative and postoperative SCr concentrations were measured, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR; mL/[min · 1.73 m2]) was calculated by a validated prediction equation.24 Early renal function was considered improved, unchanged, or worsened using a ≥20% change in SCr level at discharge. Acute tubular necrosis (ATN) was defined as a ≥20% increase in the SCr level during hospitalization >1.3 in women and >1.5 in men. Late renal function response was considered improved, unchanged or worsened using a ≥20% change in EGFR at last follow-up. Surgical technique Isolated branch renal artery repair is performed through an extended subcostal incision. The patient is positioned with a roll beneath the ipsilateral flank and the ipsilateral arm is padded and tucked. A kidney rest is elevated and the patient is flexed to increase the distance between the costal margin and pelvic crest. A right or left visceral mobilization is performed. On the right, adhesions between the anterior and posterior liver are divided first, retracting the liver superiorly. A continuous incision in the posterior peritoneum is made to mobilize the duodenum and the hepatic flexure of the colon, entering a retroperitoneal plane anterior to Gerota’s fascia to expose the right renal vein and vena cava. The duodenum and colon are swept medially and inferiorly to the left of the aorta. On the left, the descending colon and splenic flexure are mobilized at the lateral peritoneal reflection, developing a plane anterior to Gerota’s fascia and the left renal vein. In most cases, the spleen and pancreas can be left in position, mobilizing the inferior border of the pancreas and retracting this organ superiorly. In branch renal artery exposure for either kidney, early identification and mobilization of the renal vein are key. The renal vein is mobilized from the renal hilum to caval origin. On the left, the adrenal, gonadal, and lumbar vein branches are ligated. When the renal artery pathology involves the distal renal artery and hilar vessels, the proximal renal artery is exposed first. When reconstruction is performed for failed percutaneous angioplasty or failed surgical repair associated with significant periarterial fibrosis, dissection is begun distally at the renal hilum through undisturbed tissue planes. During renal artery dissection small (6.25 to 12.5 g) doses of intravenous mannitol are administered intermittently and then repeated during periods of initial ischemia and reperfusion. Mannitol is given up to a maximum cumulative dose of 1 g/kg of patient body weight. Cold perfusion protection is used when >30 to 40 minutes of warm renal ischemia is anticipated to complete the renal artery repair. Cold perfusion preservation is initiated after complete mobilization of the kidney from Gerota’s space and dissection of the hilar structures. Mobilization begins at the superior pole of the kidney after a cruciate incision is made in Gerota’s fascia. At the inferior pole of the kidney, the ureter is identified and mobilized to the level of the pelvic brim with abundant periureteric fibroareolar tissue. The ureter is left intact, but periureteric collaterals are controlled throughout the period of ischemia with doubly passed elastic loops. In the final portion of exposure, the posterior renal hilum is cleared of all surrounding tissues, thereby eliminating contamination of the systemic circulation with cold perfusate. After exposure is completed, the patient is systemically heparinized. The renal artery is ligated and divided. The renal vein is controlled at its juncture with the vena cava. When exposure is adequate, the in situ technique leaves the renal vein intact and a venotomy is made before cold perfusion of the kidney (Fig 1, A). When exposure and reconstruction require elevation of the kidney from Gerota’s space, the ex vivo technique divides the renal vein with a cuff of vena cava (Fig 1, B). In either case, the kidney is placed on a plastic barrier drape, immersed in ice slush, and flushed with a commercially available renal preservation solution with intracellular composition that has been chilled to 4°C. The kidney should appear asanguineous, with clear effluent from the renal vein, which typically requires 300 to 500 mL of perfusate. The remainder of the hilar dissection is then completed sharply. Before final division of the renal artery branches, the kidney is once again infused with chilled perfusate and branch renal artery repair performed. In most instances, branch repair involves combining (or syndactylizing) renal artery branches, especially when multiple segmental renal arteries are reconstructed (Fig 1, C). The segmental vessels are tailored and sutured together to create one or two common orifices bearing the circulation to the kidney. The distal anastomosis between the syndactylized patch and the bypass conduit is then performed. Once the distal arterial reconstruction is completed, the renal vein is repaired. For ex vivo repair, the kidney is placed in an orthotopic position and an anastomosis from the renal vein to the vena cava is created. For the in situ technique, the venotomy is simply closed. In the final stage of reconstruction, the proximal bypass graft is anastomosed to the aorta. On the right, the renal artery conduit is routed posterior to the vena cava except in those cases when branch renal reconstruction is required for failed angioplasty or failed surgical repair. In these cases, there is often a retrocaval cicatrix that makes dissection in this area hazardous. Otherwise, the retrocaval space is mobilized, and one or two pairs of lumbar veins are ligated and divided. The infrarenal aorta is mobilized, preserving all lumbar arteries, and then controlled with clamps. An anterolateral ellipse of aortic wall is removed using several applications of an aortic punch. The renal conduit is then spatulated and sewn in an end-to-side fashion to the aorta (Fig 1, D). For the entirety of the ischemic period, the kidney is maintained in ice slush. Before reperfusion, the kidney is removed from slush, the renal vessels are released simultaneously, and the ureter loop is released. Ureteric peristalsis resumes within 15 minutes in most cases. Regardless of the method of reconstruction, each repair is evaluated with intraoperative RDUS imaging. B-scan images are obtained from all areas of operative dissection and vascular reconstruction. A B-scan defect is imaged in both longitudinal and transverse projection, and Doppler samples are obtained proximal and distal to an imaged defect to determine their contribution to flow disturbance. Color-flow is taken from the renal parenchyma in the upper, middle, and inferior kidney, and Doppler parenchymal signals are obtained. The criteria for major B-scan defects requiring immediate revision are (1) a focal peak systolic velocity ≥1.8 m/s with a distal turbulent waveform and (2) no Doppler-shifted signal from the renal artery (consistent with occlusion). Statistical methods Data were examined for all patients who underwent branch renal artery reconstruction using cold perfusion protection. Descriptive statistics were computed, including means ± standard deviations of continuous variables and frequencies and percents of categoric variables. Changes in blood pressure and renal function (SCr or EGFR) were assessed using paired t tests. Censored outcomes (primary renal artery patency and patient survival) were estimated by life-table methods. Graphic depiction of patency was constructed using product-limit estimates (Fig 2). Results  Operative management Cold perfusion was used to repair 78 renal arteries by ex vivo (49 kidneys) or in situ (29 kidneys) techniques (Table II). Of the 29 patients with bilateral disease or disease to a solitary kidney, bilateral renal artery repair was performed in eight patients, with 13 repairs to solitary kidneys. Bilateral renal artery repairs were performed in a staged fashion (mean interval, 8.6 months). One patient had bilateral cold perfusion renal artery reconstruction and seven had unilateral reconstruction using cold perfusion protection and contralateral warm in situ reconstruction. Renal artery disease included renal artery aneurysm (RAA) in 50 patients, fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) in 37, atherosclerosis in 5, and arteritis in 2; 16 patients had both FMD and RAA. Renal artery reconstruction was performed in six patients who had failed PTRA (4 ex vivo, 2 in situ). All six patients had FMD and significant hypertension. Of 78 renal artery repairs, saphenous vein was used in 69, hypogastric artery in 3, composite vein/polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in 2, PTFE in 2, cephalic vein in 1, and aneurysmorrhaphy in 1. One planned nephrectomy was performed at the time of contralateral ex vivo renal artery reconstruction for unreconstructable renal artery disease. No unplanned nephrectomies were required for intended reconstruction. Each renal artery reconstruction required branch dissection and reconstruction (mean 2.8 ± 1.6 branches were repaired). Mean operative time was 7.75 ± 1.2 hours (median, 8 hours; range, 5 to 11 hours). Mean cold ischemia time was 125 ± 40 minutes. Each kidney was reconstructed in an orthotopic fashion. Intraoperative duplex imaging (48 kidneys) and early postoperative angiography/RDUS imaging (18 patients) defined significant technical defects in 12 patients (18.2%). Seven renal arterial reconstructions with major B-scan defects noted on intraoperative RDUS imaging were revised immediately, with completion duplex imaging to insure a satisfactory result. Postoperative angiography or RDUS imaging, or both, demonstrated five occlusions. Morbidity and mortality Perioperative complications that extended the hospital stay occurred in 5.2% of patients. These included ileus in 1 patient, wound infection in 2, sacral decubitus ulcer in 1, and respiratory failure, pneumonia, and need for temporary dialysis in 1 patient. The latter patient underwent renal artery bypass to a solitary kidney, which thrombosed in the immediate perioperative period requiring emergent surgical revision. Renal failure developed despite a patent graft, and he required 1 week of hemodialysis. After 1 month of hospitalization, the patient was discharged home off dialysis, with a stable EGFR. No additional hemodialysis was required during 19 months of follow-up. Five early repair failures required three nephrectomies (Table III). One perioperative graft occlusion to a solitary kidney was reoperated on with successful kidney salvage (as noted previously). The remaining patients were asymptomatic, and their graft occlusions were identified on routine postoperative angiography or RDUS imaging, or both. One perioperative death occurred (1.3%) in a patient who had advanced cirrhosis and a large, symptomatic RAA. Postoperative hemorrhage led to multisystem organ dysfunction, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death. No late graft occlusions occurred, and no patients progressed to dialysis-dependence. Long-term follow-up for vital status was a mean 7.3 years (range, 0 to 17 years; median, 7.7 years). Two late deaths occurred, one at 8.4 years and one at 14.2 years. The product-limit estimate of survival was 96% at 10 years. Blood pressure response Preoperative hypertension was present in 93.5% of patients (mean blood pressure, 184 ± 35/107 ± 19 mm Hg; mean number medications, 1.9 ± 1.1). Among the 72 hypertensive patients, 15% were cured, 65% were improved, and 20% were considered failed after renal artery repair (Table III).24 Considered collectively, hypertensive patients had decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressures (141 ± 21/83 ± 12 mm Hg; P < .0001) as well as decreased medication requirements for adequate blood pressure control (medications, 1.5 ± 1.5; P < .0001). Of the six patients who underwent repair after failed PTRA, hypertension was cured in four and improved in two. Bilateral disease or disease to a solitary kidney was noted in 29 patients, of which eight had bilateral repair, including one with bilateral cold perfusion. Eight patients with bilateral disease had only unilateral repair when blood pressure was cured or improved after the first operation. Early renal function Early renal function was improved in 35% of patients, preserved in 48%, and worse in 17% after renal artery repair (mean preoperative SCr, 1.0 ± 0.36; mean discharge SCr, 0.91 ± 0.45; Table III). Four patients (7.1%) had ATN in the postoperative period. Mean preoperative SCr in these patients was 1.83 ± 0.72 compared with a postoperative SCr of 2.23 ± 0.67. One of the four patients with ATN required temporary hemodialysis (as described previously). Two of the patients with ATN had early graft occlusions, one of which was noted on routine postoperative angiography. Renal function response Late renal function response was available for 35 of 77 patients (Table III). The average time to follow-up EGFR was 12 months (median, 3.4 months; range, 0.70 to 80 months). The EGFR was improved in 37%, unchanged in 46%, and worse in 17% (mean preoperative EGFR, 76.2 ± 31.7; mean follow-up EGFR, 83.0 ± 41.9; mean change EGFR, 6.8 ± 30.5). In the eight patients with preoperative renal insufficiency and follow-up, renal function was improved in four, unchanged in three, and worse in one (mean preoperative EGFR, 41.3 ± 14.7; mean follow-up EGFR, 55.1 ± 28.2). Three of the four patients with perioperative ATN had follow-up SCr for analysis. Of those, two had unchanged EGFR on last follow-up and one had a slow decline in EGFR over 3 years despite a patent graft (preoperative EGFR, 53.8; follow-up EGFR, 26.0). No patients have required permanent dialysis in a mean follow-up of 34 months. Estimated patency of repair Of the 77 patients, 68 had anatomic follow-up (mean, 34 ± 47 months; range, 1 week to 198 months). Estimated primary patency of renal artery repair using angiography or RDUS imaging, or both, was 85% ± 5% at 12 months (Table III). Graft stenoses were demonstrated in five patients, three on surveillance duplex imaging and two on follow-up angiography performed for recurrent hypertension. Of these, 1 refused reintervention, 2 underwent successful operative revision at the time of a contralateral renal artery repair, 1 had successful angioplasty and endoluminal stenting, and 1 patient had operative revision to a solitary kidney. The product-limit estimate of primary assisted patency was 93% ± 4% at 12 months. (Fig 2, Appendix, online only.) Discussion  Basic data pertaining to the tolerance of the human kidney to warm renal ischemia are incomplete. Renal tolerance to ischemia is in part related to the duration of ischemia, to the adequacy of collateral circulation, and to the method of vascular control. In this latter regard, unprotected warm renal ischemia is best tolerated when only the renal artery is controlled.10 Control of both renal artery and vein is associated with greater dysfunction than isolated arterial control, as is intermittent control with repeated renal perfusion.10, 21, 25, 26 Early canine experiments demonstrated graded levels of decreased renal function associated with increased periods of unprotected warm ischemia.10 Although the time associated with irreparable renal damage cannot be precisely defined clinically, 20 minutes of warm ischemia in a canine model was associated with recovery of renal function in minutes to hours, 30 minutes of unprotected ischemia required 3 to 9 days for recovery, and 2 hours ischemia was associated with permanent loss of 30% to 50% of renal function. Based on these data and similar observations in clinical practice, we use methods of renal protection when more than 30 to 40 minutes of warm ischemia would be anticipated for renal artery repair. Several pharmacologic strategies for renal protection during warm ischemia have been proposed.17, 27, 28 In general, these strategies have sought to reduce intrarenal vasoconstriction, stabilize cellular and subcellular membranes, or provide alternative energy sources during ischemia. Although effective for brief periods, no single pharmacologic therapy or combination of therapies has been demonstrated to be superior to renal cooling and sustained hypothermia. Numerous methods for renal cooling and hypothermia during branch renal artery repair have been described; however, several steps are common to each branch renal artery reconstruction. To promote renocortical perfusion, small doses of intravenous mannitol are administered.17, 27, 28 Before the division of the renal artery, intravenous heparin (100 U/kg) is administered, and systemic anticoagulation is verified by activated clotting time. Unless required for hemostasis, protamine is not routinely administered for reversal of the heparin effect. Otherwise, recommended techniques for renal hypothermia range from surface cooling to hypothermic perfusion.10, 13, 15, 20, 22, 23 In the latter instance, renal protection has been observed with single, cold bolus perfusion of the renal artery, intermittent renal artery perfusion, continuous pulsatile perfusion, renal vein perfusion, and cold perfusion of the collecting system.10 Of these options, our group has used intermittent, cold perfusion of the renal artery combined with surface cooling. This technique provides for uniform renal hypothermia and protection well in excess of that required for branch renal artery repair. Although pulsatile perfusion may offer superior hypothermic protection when ischemic times are >12 to 24 hours, this issue is not relevant to renal artery repair. Hypothermia appears to be more important than the composition of perfusate; however, perfusate with an intracellular composition limits ion exchange and intracellular volume shifts that contribute to organelle dysfunction associated with decreased activity of membrane-bound Na+-K+ adenosine triphosphatase.10, 29, 30 The effectiveness of this protection strategy is supported by the renal function estimates observed early after repair: of patients with patent repair, only two demonstrated >20% increase in perioperative SCr concentrations. The operative management described in this consecutive case series differs from previous reports. Other reports have advocated pelvic autotransplantation after ex vivo renal artery repair with or without ureteral division and ureteroneocystostomy.31, 32, 33 When applied to renal transplantation, pelvic placement of the kidney allows retroperitoneal arterial, venous, and bladder exposure with a minimum of operative dissection. Rejection in the transplanted kidney is more easily assessed by physical examination and DUS imaging and more easily biopsied when necessary. Finally, transplant nephrectomy is facilitated by pelvic placement of the kidney. In contrast, these advantages of pelvic autotransplantation do not apply to the patient group requiring autogenous branch renal artery repair.34 Our group of patients averaged 44 years of age, with >95% survival at 10 years of follow-up. Consequently, this patient group requires a durable repair capable of renal function for decades. Renal reconstruction at the iliac level places the repair at or below sites susceptible to subsequent atherosclerosis. Moreover, pelvic autotransplantation potentially complicates subsequent management of such vascular disease. Because of these concerns, each of our reconstructions was made in orthotopic fashion. The ureter is mobilized but remains intact, eliminating the need for bladder exposure and ureteral anastomosis. Before 1992, ex vivo renal artery repairs were routinely studied with angiography before hospital discharge. In the absence of validated methods of intraoperative assessment, an angiogram obtained 5 to 7 days after ex vivo repair allowed identification of technical defects that threatened the patency of repair. Early postoperative correction of technical defects avoided possible renal artery occlusion and allowed repair in the absence of established postoperative cicatrix. Although invasive and not entirely without risk, the inadequacy of clinical response to predict patency was demonstrated by the four ex vivo repairs that occluded silently in the postoperative period. In each case, hypertension was considered cured or improved despite complete failure of repair. Since 1992, each elective renal artery reconstruction has been evaluated with intraoperative DUS imaging. Major B-scan defects defined by intraoperative study have been repaired immediately. Our enthusiasm for DUS imaging is supported by the long-term estimates of patency associated with its use; however, assessment of branch renal artery repairs after cold ischemia presents special demands.35, 36, 37, 38 Imaging each segmental renal artery branch is technically challenging. As the Doppler sample volume moves from the main renal graft into segmental branches, there is often a uniform increase in peak systolic velocity exceeding criteria for stenosis (ie, ≥1.8 m/s). This finding is especially common when cold ischemia is >90 minutes. It is distinguished from a major defect requiring repair by the lack of focal increase and lack of turbulence. Moreover, the Doppler spectral analysis from the renal artery early after revascularization may demonstrate a paucity of diastolic flow consistent with an intrarenal catastrophe. Administration of 30 mg of intra-arterial papaverine in the renal artery graft will resolve this vasoactivity and restore a normal diastolic Doppler spectrum. Patient selection for cold perfusion preservation deserves special comment. The need for hypothermic renal protection cannot always be accurately predicted preoperatively, especially when renal protection is dictated by renal vein anatomy that obscures arterial exposure. Certain arterial pathologies predictably require branch exposure and frequent branch repair, however, including hilar renal artery aneurysms, failed PTRA, and renal artery dissections. In these instances, preoperative preparations for cold perfusion are made, but the decision regarding hypothermic protection is made at the operating table. If hypothermia is selected and adequate exposure is provided, an in situ repair is made with the renal vein intact. When exposure is compromised, an ex vivo repair is made after the renal vein is divided. By using this selective approach, half of branch renal artery repairs in the past year required cold perfusion protection, and one used cold perfusion leaving the renal vein intact. Our study has several limitations that deserve comment. The study is a retrospective review of a single institution’s experience during a 19-year period, with significant patient selection bias. With the exception of large RAA, the presence of severe hypertension was considered a prerequisite for repair. In addition, the patient group reflects a population often referred from a considerable distance from our center. Given the travel distance, 50% of our patients have <12 months of anatomic follow-up data for analysis. Moreover, our results cannot be generalized to the elderly atherosclerotic patient. Our patient population was young and predominately female. The renal lesions most frequently treated were FMD and hilar RAA. Few patients in this study had atherosclerotic disease. Nevertheless, the study serves to describe a technique of managing complex operative renal artery lesions, which results in a beneficial blood pressure and renal function response as well as renal salvage. It seems reasonable to expect that an increasing proportion of open operative renal artery repairs will require preservation techniques as endovascular therapy is more frequently used for renovascular disease involving the main renal artery. Conclusion  Cold perfusion techniques are useful adjuncts during repair of complex renal artery pathology. Cold perfusion provides early renal protection during extended periods of renal ischemia. Combined with intraoperative completion duplex, long-term patency of repair and preservation of renal function favors these strategies of reconstruction. Author contributions  Conception and design: TC, ME, RD, KH Analysis and interpretation: TC, TEC, ME, KH Data collection: TC, JP, TEC Writing the article: TC, JP, TEC, KH Critical revision of the article: TC, JP, TEC, KH Final approval of the article: TC, JP, TEC, ME, RD, KH Statistical analysis: TC, TEC, KH Obtained funding: KH Overall responsibility: TC Appendix  Additional material for this article may be found online at www.jvascsurg.org. References  1. 1Slovut DP, Olin JW. Fibromuscular dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1862–1871.
CrossRef
2. 2Zeller T. Renal artery stenosis: epidemiology, clinical manifestation, and percutaneous endovascular therapy. J Interv Cardiol. 2005;18:497–506. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
3. 3Bush RL, Najibi S, MacDonald MJ, Lin PH, Chaikof EL, Martin LG, et al. Endovascular revascularization of renal artery stenosis: technical and clinical results. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:1041–1049. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (306 KB)
|
CrossRef
4. 4Sivamurthy N, Surowiec SM, Culakova E, Rhodes JM, Lee D, Sternbach Y, et al. Divergent outcomes after percutaneous therapy for symptomatic renal artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:565–574. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (146 KB)
|
CrossRef
5. 5Brekke IB, Sodal G, Jakobsen A, Bentdal O, Pfeffer P, Albrechtsen D, et al. Fibro-muscular renal artery disease treated by extracorporeal vascular reconstruction and renal autotransplantation: short- and long-term results. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1992;6:471–476.
CrossRef
6. 6Harris JP, Walker PJ, White GH, May J. Bench repair of complex renal arterial lesions. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5:138–142. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (764 KB)
|
CrossRef
7. 7Lederman RJ, Mendelsohn FO, Santos R, Phillips HR, Stack RS, Crowley JJ. Primary renal artery stenting: characteristics and outcomes after 363 procedures. Am Heart J. 2001;142:314–323. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (187 KB)
|
CrossRef
8. 8Carmo M, Bower TC, Mozes G, Nachreiner RD, Textor SC, Hoskin TL, et al. Surgical management of renal fibromuscular dysplasia: challenges in the endovascular era. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005;19:208–217. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (960 KB)
|
CrossRef
9. 9Alhadad A, Mattiasson I, Ivancev K, Gottsater A, Lindblad B. Revascularisation of renal artery stenosis caused by fibromuscular dysplasia: effects on blood pressure during 7-year follow-up are influenced by duration of hypertension and branch artery stenosis. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:761–767. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
10. 10Novick AC. Renal hypothermia: in vivo and ex vivo. Urol Clin North Am. 1983;10:637–644. MEDLINE 11. 11Desai MM, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Spaliviero M, Rybicki L, Kaouk JH. The impact of warm ischaemia on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2005;95:377–383. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
12. 12Thompson RH, Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Blute ML. Complications of contemporary open nephron sparing surgery: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2005;174:855–858. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (64 KB)
|
CrossRef
13. 13Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Serio A, Huang WC, Snyder ME, Vickers AJ, et al. Temporary renal ischemia during nephron sparing surgery is associated with short-term but not long-term impairment in renal function. J Urol. 2006;176:1339–1343. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (121 KB)
|
CrossRef
14. 14Van der Werf WJ, D’Alessandro AM, Hoffmann RM, Knechtle SJ. Procurement, preservation, and transport of cadaver kidneys. Surg Clin North Am. 1998;78:41–54. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (825 KB)
|
CrossRef
15. 15Mitchell RM. Renal cooling and ischaemia. Br J Surg. 1959;46:593–597. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
16. 16Green CJ, Pegg DE. Mechanism of action of “intracellular” renal preservation solutions. World J Surg. 1979;3:115–120. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
17. 17Collins GM, Green RD, Boyer D, Halasz NA. Protection of kidneys from warm ischemic injury (Dosage and timing of mannitol administration). Transplantation. 1980;29:83–84. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
18. 18Bogardus GM, Schlosser RJ. The influence of temperature upon ischemic renal damage. Surgery. 1956;39:970–974. MEDLINE 19. 19Cockett AT. The kidney and regional hypothermia. Surgery. 1961;50:905–910. MEDLINE 20. 20Farcon EM, Morales P, al-Askari S. In vivo hypothermic perfusion during renal surgery. Urology. 1974;3:414–420. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (2593 KB)
|
CrossRef
21. 21Leary FJ, Utz DC, Wakim KG. Effects of continuous and intermittent renal ischemia on renal function. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963;116:311–317. MEDLINE 22. 22Ward JP. Determination of the Optimum temperature for regional renal hypothermia during temporary renal ischaemia. Br J Urol. 1975;47:17–24. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
23. 23Haddad M, Barral X, Boissier C, Bouilloc X, Beraud AM. Extracorporeal repair of renal artery branch lesions. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1989;3:435–441.
CrossRef
24. 24Rundback JH, Sacks D, Kent KC, Cooper C, Jones D, Murphy T, et al. Guidelines for the reporting of renal artery revascularization in clinical trials (American Heart Association). Circulation. 2002;106:1572–1585.
CrossRef
25. 25Wilson DH, Barton BB, Parry WL, Hinshaw LB. Effects of intermittent versus continuous renal arterial occlusion on hemodynamics and function of the kidney. Invest Urol. 1971;8:507–515. MEDLINE 26. 26Jones WR, Politano VA. The effects of renal artery occlusion on renal function under normothermia and regional hypothermia. J Urol. 1963;89:535–540. MEDLINE 27. 27Dishart MK, Kellum JA. An evaluation of pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of acute renal failure. Drugs. 2000;59:79–91. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
28. 28Zacharias M, Gilmore IC, Herbison GP, Sivalingam P, Walker RJ. Interventions for protecting renal function in the perioperative period. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;CD003590. 29. 29Ahmad N, Pratt JR, Potts DJ, Lodge JP. Comparative efficacy of renal preservation solutions to limit functional impairment after warm ischemic injury. Kidney Int. 2006;69:884–893. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
30. 30Karam G, Compagnon P, Hourmant M, Despins P, Duveau D, Noury D, et al. A single solution for multiple organ procurement and preservation. Transpl Int. 2005;18:657–663. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
31. 31Barral X, Gournier JP, Frering V, Favre JP, Berthoux F. Dysplastic lesions of renal artery branches: late results of ex vivo repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 1992;6:225–231. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (753 KB)
|
CrossRef
32. 32Dubernard JM, Martin X, Mongin D, Gelet A, Canton F. Extracorporeal replacement of the renal artery: techniques, indications and long-term results. J Urol. 1985;133:13–16. MEDLINE 33. 33Knobloch K, Wiebe K, Lichtenberg A, Fischer S, Gohrbandt B, Haverich A. Ex vivo repair and renal autotransplantation for complex renal artery aneurysms in a solitary kidney. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005;19:407–410. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (825 KB)
|
CrossRef
34. 34Dean RH, Meacham PW, Weaver FA. Ex vivo renal artery reconstructions: indications and techniques. J Vasc Surg. 1986;4:546–552. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (1211 KB)
|
CrossRef
35. 35Hansen KJ, O’Neil EA, Reavis SW, Craven TE, Plonk GW, Dean RH. Intraoperative duplex sonography during renal artery reconstruction. J Vasc Surg. 1991;14:364–374. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (2710 KB)
|
CrossRef
36. 36van Weel V, van Bockel JH, van Wissen R, van Baalen JM. Intraoperative renal duplex sonography: a valuable method for evaluating renal artery reconstructions. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;20:268–272. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (77 KB)
|
CrossRef
37. 37Dougherty MJ, Hallett JW, Naessens JM, Bower TC, Cherry KJ, Gloviczki P, et al. Optimizing technical success of renal revascularization: the impact of intraoperative color-flow duplex ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:849–856. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (3543 KB)
|
CrossRef
38. 38Okuhn SP, Reilly LM, Bennett JB, Hughes L, Goldstone J, Ehrenfeld WK, et al. Intraoperative assessment of renal and visceral artery reconstruction: the role of duplex scanning and spectral analysis. J Vasc Surg. 1987;5:137–147. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (4916 KB)
|
CrossRef
a Division of Surgical Sciences, Section on Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC b Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. Reprint requests: Kimberley J. Hansen, MD, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1095.
Competition of interest: none. PII: S0741-5214(07)00639-8 doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2007.04.036 © 2007 The Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|