No abstract

Summary Increasing numbers of elderly (≥65 years) patients are listed for kidney transplantation. This study compares the survival outcome between living (LDK), regularly allocated (ETKAS), and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) donor kidneys in elderly recipients. This is a single‐center retrospective cohort study of elderly kidney transplant recipients transplanted between 2005 and 2017. Primary outcome measures were nondeath‐censored graft, death‐censored graft, and patient survival. In total, 348 patients were transplanted, 109 recipients (31.3%) received an LDK, 100 (28.7%) an ETKAS, and 139 (40%) an ESP kidney. 62.5% were male, and median age was 68 years. LDK recipients had significantly better 5‐year nondeath‐censored graft survival compared with ETKAS and ESP (resp. 71.0% vs. 66.1% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.047). Death‐censored graft survival after 1 year was significantly better in LDK recipients (99.1%) (ETKAS 90.8%; ESP 87.7%, P < 0.001). After 5 years, the difference remained significant (P < 0.001) with little additional graft loss (97.7% vs. 88.1% vs. 85.6). There was no significant difference in patient survival after 5 years (71.7% vs. 67.4% vs 61.9%, P = 0.480). In elderly recipients, the patient survival benefits of an LDK are limited, but there is decreased death‐censored graft loss for LDK recipients. Nevertheless, graft survival in ETKAS and ESP remains satisfactory.

Background For cervical foraminal nerve root decompression, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) can be applied. Amongst neurosurgeons, there seems to be a tendency to prefer ACDF over PCF, even though there are some advantages in favor of PCF. The object of present study is to evaluate which factors determine the choice for an anterior or posterior surgical approach in patients with a cervical radicular syndrome based on foraminal pathology. Methods A web-based survey was sent to all 133 neurosurgeons in the Netherlands. The first part focused on general perceived (dis)advantages of ACDF and PCF. The second part concerned questions about the choice between the two procedures. Furthermore, it was analyzed if exposure during training, amount of performed surgeries, assumed reoperation and complication rates influenced the choice of procedure by conducting Chi-square tests with post-hoc analysis. Results A total of 56 neurosurgeons responded (42%). Of these, 77% performed more than 10 ACDF and 25% more than 10 PCF annually. An overall preference for ACDF was observed, even when differentiating for a pure disc prolapse, a spondylotic or a combined stenosis. The most relative important factors for motivating the preference for either ACDF or PCF were: the assumed best decompression of the nerve root (18%), perceived congruence with current literature (16%), exposure during residency (12%), personal comfort with the procedure (11%), and experience with the technique (11%). Conclusions In this survey, there was an overall preference for ACDF above PCF for the surgical treatment of a foraminal cervical radiculopathy. In addition to subjective factors as “experience” and “ comfort” with the procedure, the respondents often motivated their choice as “the best one according to literature”. As there is currently no evidence about the superiority of any of the procedures in literature, this assumption is remarkable.