Donor evaluation,donor risks,donor outcome,and donor quality of life in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LD-LTx) is currently performed at an increasing number of transplant centers. Donor selection, donor safety, donor recovery, and postdonation psychological impairment are essential criteria to determine whether and under which conditions LD-LTx is justifiable. Before commencing the LD-LTx program, approval was obtained from the local ethics committee. Potential donors underwent a comprehensive multistep evaluation protocol to exclude any conditions that could lead to an increased operative risk. Each donation was approved by the local Living Donation Commission. Follow-up investigations were performed after 6 and 12 months. Liver regeneration was assessed by computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging scan derived volumetries. Quality of life (QOL) was investigated according to the Anamnestic Comparative Self-Assessment Scale (ACSA) before donation, and 6 and 12 months after donation. As of December 2001, 43 right lobe living donations have been performed at the Charité, Campus Virchow, Berlin. None of the donors died or has suffered life-threatening or persisting complications. All patients recovered completely. Complications occured in 8 donors (18%). The incidence of perioperative surgical complications was 9%, comprising temporary biliary leakages (n = 3; 6.8%) as well as postoperative bleeding (n = 1). Liver volume regeneration approximated 72% ± 15% of predonation volume by 6 months and 85% ± 18% (mean ± SD) by 12 months. There was no evidence of significant psychological impairment after donation. QOL increased after donation compared with the preoperative state (P < .05). In our experience, LD-LTx has proven to be a practicable and safe procedure. However, there is a considerable risk of postoperative complications. The donor selection process plays a pivotal role in preventing complications. The discussion of potential risks, especially potential life-threatening risks, must be an integral part of informed consent. (Liver Transpl 2002;8:829-837.)     

Living donor kidney transplantation from the elderly donor

PURPOSE: The organ shortage has led to increasing acceptance of living donation in all transplant centers. Although the risk of impaired long-term outcome seems to be greater using elderly donors, these organs are not generally refused for transplantation. We report our experience with 25 living donor kidney transplantations from donors older than 60 years. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2004, 124 living donor procedures were performed in our center from 83 related and 41 unrelated donors. Twenty-five donors (19 female, 6 male) were 60 years or older (mean, 65.3 +/- 3.9 years). The recipient included (10 females and 15 males) showed a higher degree of variance in age (46.1 +/- 14.6 years). The immunosuppressive protocol was cyclosporine (CyA)-based regimen in related cases and tacrolimus-based in unrelated cases. RESULTS: We transplanted 16 left and 9 right kidneys from older donors. The mean cold ischemia time was 171 +/- 64 minutes with a second warm ischemia time of 24 +/- 6 minutes. Severe arteriosclerosis made vascular reconstruction by graft interposition necessary in two recipients. The acute rejection rate was 20%. Two patients (8%) required dialysis in the early postoperative course, whereas initial function was excellent in 22 patients (88%). The mean serum creatinine concentration after 12 months was 1.6 +/- 0.3 mg/dL (n = 24) and 2.0 +/- 0.7 mg/dL (n = 16) at 4 years. In comparison, the mean creatinine concentration after 4 years in donors under 60 years was 1.6 +/- 0.9 mg/dL. Our analysis showed no significant difference in long-term graft function comparing young versus old donors in the setting of living donor transplants. CONCLUSION: Using living donors older than 60 years for transplantation is a feasible and safe option. The difference in long-term creatinine between young and old donors was not significant.     

Living donor nephrectomy-quantifying the risk for the donor

Living kidney donation is on the rise, either due to cultural or ethical reasons or due to a lack of deceased donor kidneys. For adequately counseling of a potential living kidney donor, medical professionals must know not only the immediate risks of kidney donation but also possible long-term effects of kidney donation on the donor's physical and psychological well-being. This also includes a range of aspects such as quality of life, insurance issues, and family planning following kidney donation. This review article is based on a Medline and PubMed search and elucidates the risks living kidney donors face with regard to all aspects just mentioned. Living kidney donation does not end with the operative procedure—long-term cost-free physical and psychological follow-up should be offered to each donor for the gift he or she is willing to give to the recipient.     

活体供肾移植:手助腹腔镜供肾切除优于常规腹腔镜供肾切除

目的　比较活体供肾移植中手助腹腔镜供肾切除 (Hand -assistedlaparoscopicdonornephrectomy ,HALDN)和完全腹腔镜活体供肾切除 (Laparoscopicdonornephrectomy,LDN)以及对供肾者和接受肾移植者的影响。　方法　回顾总结 1996年 10月～ 2 0 0 1年 2月MountSinai医学中心所有LDN和HALDN的病例资料。 1996年 10月开始行LDN手术 ,1999年 6月转而行HALDN手术。　结果　与LDN组相比 ,HALDN组手术时间明显缩短 ( ( 2 11± 7)minvs ( 2 5 7± 5 )min ,P <0 0 5 ) ,术中出血量明显减少 ( ( 12 2± 17)mlvs ( 2 86± 33)ml,P <0 0 5 ) ,肾脏热缺血时间明显缩短 ( ( 10 6± 6 )svs ( 2 5 7± 8)s,P <0 0 5 ) ,术后淋巴漏和血栓形成发生率 ( 0 %vs 13 7% ( 16例 ) ;2 5 % ( 2例 )vs 6 8% ( 8例 ) ,P <0 0 5 )明显下降。　结论　在活体供肾移植中 ,HALDN似乎优于LDN ,但尚需要前瞻性对照研究予以进一步证实。     

HBsAg(+) donor as a kidney transplantation deceased donor

Background

The organ shortage and high prevalence of hepatitis B (HB) infection in the general population are important issues in Taiwan. It is difficult for us to abandon HBsAg(+) donors. Hereby we present our experience transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with HB virus infection.

Methods

From November 1977 to March 2007, 21 patients with end-stage renal disease received kidney grafts from 12 HBsAg(+) deceased donors (3.92% of 306 donors). One of the 12 donors was hepatitis Be antigen (HBeAg) (+), and 5 displayed antibody to hepatitis core antigen (anti-HBc) (+). Four of the 21 recipients were HBsAg(+) before transplantation.

Results

Four HBsAg(+) recipients remained surface antigen positive after transplantation. One of them died of an intracranial hemorrhage. Two (11.76%) of the other 17 HBsAg(−) recipients became HBsAg(+), 1 of whom died of hepatic failure and the other of sepsis. The other 15 HBsAg(−) recipients (88.23%) remained HBsAg(−) after transplantation. They displayed normal serum levels of aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase during the follow-up period. The 5-year patient and graft survivals were 85.15% and 61.14%, respectively.

Conclusion

Although the number of patients is relatively small, it does suggest that a kidney allograft from an HBsAg(+) deceased donor transplanted to an HBsAg(+) or (−) recipient is safe. This strategy shortens the waiting time. Additional prophylactic HB immunoglobulin and antiviral medications are also suggested. Frequent surveillance after transplantation is essential.     

Expanding the donor pool: the elderly non-heart-beating donor

The need for transplantable organs continues to far outweigh the number of organs available for transplantation through donation. To date, many avenues for expanding the donor pool have been explored, including non-heart-beating donor protocols and the expansion of acceptable criteria. This case study reviews the successful procurement of a liver and kidney from a 72-year-old non-heart-beating donor.     

Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes

PURPOSE: In experienced hands laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be safe for procuring kidneys for transplantation that function identically to open nephrectomy controls. While searching for a safer and easier approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand assisted laparoscopic techniques have been added to the surgical armamentarium. We compare allograft function in patients with greater than 1-year followup who underwent open donor (historic series), classic laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 48 patients who underwent open donor, laparoscopic donor or hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy were reviewed. Only patients with greater than 1-year followup and complete charts were included in our study. Of these patients 34 underwent consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and 14 underwent open donor nephrectomy. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation (SD) was 36.5 +/- 8.4 years for donors and 29 +/- 17 for recipients at transplantation (range 13 months to 69 years). In the laparoscopic group 11 patients underwent the transperitoneal technique, and 23 underwent hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. RESULTS: Total operating time was significantly reduced with the hand assisted laparoscopic technique compared with classic laparoscopy, as was the time from skin incision to kidney removal and warm ischemic time. Average warm ischemic time plus or minus SD was 3.9 +/- 0.3 minutes for laparoscopic nephrectomy and 1.6 +/- 0.2 for hand assisted laparoscopy (p <0.05). Long-term followup of serum creatinine levels revealed no significant differences among the 3 groups. Comparison of those levels for recipients of open nephrectomy versus laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic techniques revealed p values greater than 0.5. No blood transfusions were necessary. Complications included adrenal vein injury in 1 patient, small bowel obstruction in 2, abdominal hernia at the trocar site in 1 and deep venous thrombosis in 1. CONCLUSIONS: Classic laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies appear to be safe procedures for harvesting kidneys. The recipient graft function is similar in the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.     

The impact of donor age on living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The impact of the age of the donor on the outcome of living related liver transplantation is yet to be clarified. METHODS: During October 14, 1996 and December 20, 1999, 34 living related liver transplantations were performed. Of these, 26 cases were performed using the extended left lobe graft, which were classified into three groups; younger donor group (group Y, donor age < 30, n = 7), middle-aged donor group (group M, 30 < or = donor age <50, n=13), and older donor group (group O, donor age < 50, n = 6). Early allograft function and regeneration were compared between these groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in standard liver volume, and predicted or harvested graft size between the three groups. Although serum transaminase and total bilirubin levels within postoperative day 7 were not different between the groups, the prothrombin time on postoperative day 3 was significantly longer in group O than in group Y. One week after transplantation, group Y had significantly greater graft/standard liver volume ratio than group O, and greater graft volume than group M and O. One month after transplantation, however, there was no significant difference in such graft size parameters between the groups. Graft and patient survival were comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Although function and regeneration of the allografts from older donors in living donor liver transplantation is worse than those of their younger counterparts, the outcome is not affected by the age of the liver.     

Living donor nephrectomy

The need for more organs for kidney transplantation is increasing. Cadaver sources for these organs are stable, therefore living donation must increase if the need is to be met. Less perfect kidneys are now being transplanted. The pool of potential donors is being expanded. The process of kidney donation is being made easier in an effort to increase the number of donors. The donor work-up is being streamlined. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been introduced, and appears to be promising as a technique of lessening donor pain and suffering, while maintaining excellent graft results.     

扩大供肾标准的亲属肾移植临床效果分析

目的 探讨扩大供肾标准的亲属肾移植临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2005年11月至2011年6月亲属活体肾移植274例的临床资料,按供者情况分为扩大供者标准(供者年龄≥60岁、肾脏解剖结构/功能异常)组(66例)和标准供者组(208例).扩大标准组供者年龄≥60岁36例,其中合并肾囊肿6例,合并肾结石1例;肾囊肿22例,囊肿直径4～40 mm;肾结石4例,结石直径3 ～～6 mm;术侧肾小球滤过率(GFR) ＜35 ml/min 4例.统计学比较两组受者术后3、7d,l、3、6、12个月血清SCr值、并发症发生率、急性排斥反应发生率、移植肾功能延迟恢复(DGF)发生率,1、3年人/肾存活率.结果 扩大标准组及标准供者组受者术后3、7d血清SCr值分别为(242.7±132.2)、( 185.6±148.4) μmol/L和(156.7±86.8)、( 122.2±136.8) μmol/L,两组受者第3天与第7天SCr值比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);但两组受者术后1、3、6、12个月血SCr、并发症发生率、急性排斥反应发生率、DGF发生率,1、3年人/肾存活率之间比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 ≥60岁健康高龄、直径＜40 mm供肾囊肿仍可考虑作为亲属肾移植供者;低GFR应结合供者年龄、供受者体表面积比、供受者体质量比、可通过外科处理纠正等方面综合考虑;供肾结石者应慎重选择.     

活体亲属部分供肝的切取技术

目的 探讨活体部分肝移植（LDLT）手术中，供者手术的安全性。方法 自1995年1月至今，对14例终末期肝病患者施行了LDLT手术。14例LDLT供者中，2例行扩大左外叶切除。10例行扩大左半肝切除（含肝中静脉），2例行右半肝切除（不含肝中静脉）。结果 仅1例供者术后拔除T管后出现胆漏，经引流后好转。对所有供者随访1个月-5年，均无不适，肝功能正常。结论 对于富有经验的医生来说，LDLT的供者手术是安全的。