Does donor cardiopulmonary resuscitation time affect outcome in uncontrolled non-heart-beating donor renal transplants?

Uncontrolled non-heart-beating donors offer the opportunity to significantly expand the potential pool of kidney donors but are associated with a variable duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), where cardiac output is only 30% to 40% of normal. We were concerned that prolonged CPR would adversely affect the function of transplanted kidneys. In our series of 46 uncontrolled donors the mean duration of CPR was 60 minutes, which also represents a realistic cutoff point for CPR duration. Taking a cutoff point of 60 minutes, we found no differences in kidney discard rates following viability assessment, primary nonfunction rate, or duration of delayed graft function. We therefore conclude that if formal viability assessment is performed, kidneys may be retrieved from uncontrolled non-heart-beating donors irrespective of duration of CPR.     

Living donor kidney transplantation: chance for the recipient--financial risk for the donor?

BACKGROUND: With living donation, in addition to the medical risk, the financial risk for the donor is essential, especially in case of complications that potentially can led to disability and loss of work. We report the experiences of those who have donated a kidney in our transplant center. METHODS: We contacted 80 donors who donated a kidney at least 6 months prior to evaluation: 72% answered 33 questions. [mean age: 54 +/- 10 (33-75) years; 69% living related, 31% unrelated]. RESULTS: Of the 80 donors contacted, 91% (53) reported to have no financial expenses due to donation; 9% (5) had expenses, but only few of them clarified exact amount. One donor had to borrow money to cover the lack when he was unable to perform his job. Another claimed the disparity between normal salary and payment from insurance company as a financial expense. Evaluation procedure prior to donation was organized variously: some donors were on holiday while evaluated, some officially were ill, others had to take off some days without payment. None of the donors lost his or her job due to donation. CONCLUSION: The financial risk of living donation is theoretically well covered by different insurances. However, some of the donors had to cover some expenses by themselves. Fortunately, so far in our center no major complications occurred and all donors went home in good health after donation. If costs are covered when a healthy donor loses his or her ability to work due to donation remains unclear since no donor has experienced this problem.     

Does preserved kidney volume predict 1 year donor renal function after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether preserved kidney volume predicts donor renal function at 1‐year post‐surgery. Data of patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between October 2006 and September 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent computed tomography scan with an estimation of kidney volume by using an automated segmentation algorithm. We also calculated kidney volume adjusted for donor body surface area and donor preserved kidney volume ratio (split volume). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was estimated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. Predictors of the estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year were assessed by multiple linear regression. The 1‐year estimated glomerular filtration rate was available in 140 patients. The median age was 40 years, and median adjusted preserved kidney volume was 160.5 cc/1.73 m² (interquartile range 143.7–177.9). Median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 92.4 (interquartile range 81.9–101.2) and 61.2 mL/min/1.73 m² (interquartile range 53.4–68.7), respectively, at baseline and at 1 year. Preserved kidney volume adjusted to body surface area (P = 0.02) with age (P = 0.002) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year. However, split kidney volume was not statistically related to estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year (P = 0.47). In order to maximize preservation of donor renal function, the pre‐donation kidney volume adjusted to body surface area might be a useful parameter to consider when deciding on living kidney donation.     

Single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation: sensible approach or unnecessary hindrance?

Background

Single-port laparoscopic (SPL) surgery has rapidly gained attention worldwide. Since May 2008, we have propagated the use of SPL surgery, mainly for cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Recently, we have used this modality of minimally invasive surgery for various liver surgeries. We hereby discuss our outcomes of SPL-assisted donor right hepatectomies.

Methods

The preoperative workup is the same as for a standard donor hepatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 150 patients who underwent donor right hepatectomy from October 2008 to May 2011. We divided them into 3 groups depending on the type of surgical procedure.

Results

Among 150 patients, 20 underwent laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH); 40 underwent single-port laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (SPLADRH); and 90 underwent open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). The donor demographics were comparable among the groups. Postoperative complication and reoperation rates revealed no significant differences. The SPLADRH group showed the lowest level of postoperative pain, thereby leading to a better quality of life postoperatively.

Conclusions

SPLADRH seems to be a simple, feasible approach.     

Is this live-organ donor your patient?

The transplant community is in the midst of an ethical reflection regarding the manner in which live-organ transplantation should be practiced. There is a fundamental aspect to be addressed and reaffirmed. It is the doctor-patient relationship between the transplant surgeon and the live-organ donor. This relationship brings a mutual responsibility to the physician and the donor patient to each other, which should not be abrogated by the claim of donor autonomy nor the obligation fostered by the recipient's needs. If equipoise is not affirmatively achieved in the risk-benefit calculation for the donor and the recipient, then sound medical judgment should override all other concerns.     

Is right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy right?

Introduction  Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care in many renal transplant centers. Many centers are reluctant to perform right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies, primarily due to concerns about transplanting a kidney with a short renal vein. Methods  A retrospective review of 26 right and 24 left consecutive donor nephrectomies and their recipients was performed. Patient demographics, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were recorded and compared. Results  Patient demographics were similar between groups. Multiple vessels were encountered more frequently on the right side (10 vs. 3, p = 0.04) and the donated kidney had lesser preoperative function in the right group as determined by nuclear medicine imaging (46.5% vs. 49.4%, p < 0.001). Donor operating times were less in the right group (198 vs. 226 min, p = 0.016). There was no difference in implantation difficulty as demonstrated by similar operative and warm ischemia times. Complication rates were similar between both groups of donors and recipients. Conclusions  Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy requires less operating time than, and is associated with similar outcomes for donors and recipients as, left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may be preferable in general and should be considered when multiple renal vessels are present on the left side and/or when preoperative function of the left kidney is greater than the right.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy--is it safe?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a less invasive alternative to open nephrectomy (ODN) for living kidney donation. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of LDN, the short and long term function of kidneys removed by LDN, and a potential higher incidence of urologic complications in LDN transplant recipients. METHODS: Between October 1997 and May 1999, 80 LDNs were performed at our center. All patients were followed longitudinally with office visits and telephone interviews. These LDNs were compared with 50 ODN performed from January 1996 to October 1997. RESULTS: LDN procedures took significantly longer than ODN (4.6 vs. 3.1 hr). However, LDN was associated with significant reduction in i.v. narcotic use, a rapid return to diet, and shorter hospital stay. Of the 80 LDN procedures, a total of 75 (94%) were completed laparoscopically. Five patients were converted to laparotomy: three for hemorrhage and two for complex vascular anatomy. ODN conversion was associated with large donor body habitus and/or obesity. Seven LDN patients had minor complications and 4 had major complications. All major complications consisted of vascular injuries (2 lumbar vein injuries, 1 renal artery, and 1 aortic injury). All patients made complete recoveries. All LDN kidneys functioned immediately posttransplant. We have observed 100% patient and 97% 1-year actuarial graft survival in LDN transplant recipients. There have been no short-or long-term urologic complications in this series. CONCLUSION: With increasing experience and standardization of technique, LDN is a safe and effective procedure. Patients undergoing LDN demonstrate clinically significant, more rapid postoperative recoveries and shorter hospital stays than ODN patients. Excellent initial graft function and long-term graft survival have been observed with LDN kidneys. Urologic complications can be avoided. LDN has become the preferred surgical approach for living kidney donation at our center.     

Predicting donor,recipient and graft survival in living donor kidney transplantation to inform pretransplant counselling: the donor and recipient linked iPREDICTLIVING tool – a retrospective study

Although separate prediction models for donors and recipients were previously published, we identified a need to predict outcomes of donor/recipient simultaneously, as they are clearly not independent of each other. We used characteristics from transplantations performed at the Oslo University Hospital from 1854 live donors and from 837 recipients of a live donor kidney transplant to derive Cox models for predicting donor mortality up to 20 years, and recipient death, and graft loss up to 10 years. The models were developed using the multivariable fractional polynomials algorithm optimizing Akaike’s information criterion, and optimism-corrected performance was assessed. Age, year of donation, smoking status, cholesterol and creatinine were selected to predict donor mortality (C-statistic of 0.81). Linear predictors for donor mortality served as summary of donor prognosis in recipient models. Age, sex, year of transplantation, dialysis vintage, primary renal disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease and HLA mismatch were selected to predict recipient mortality (C-statistic of 0.77). Age, dialysis vintage, linear predictor of donor mortality, HLA mismatch, peripheral vascular disease and heart disease were selected to predict graft loss (C-statistic of 0.66). Our prediction models inform decision-making at the time of transplant counselling and are implemented as online calculators.     

Hope or efficacy in donor liver allocation?

Both the number of recipients awaiting liver transplantation and the length of wait are increasing, giving rise to increasing concern by patients, healthcare professionals, and the public. Greater attention has been focused on the criteria for listing patients for transplantation and for allocation of organs. In the U.K., compared with the U.S., the delivery of liver transplant services is more tightly regulated, with fewer transplant centers, lower transplant rates, shorter waiting lists, and shorter waiting times. The reasons for these differences are unclear. In the U.K., patients are listed only if there is a reasonable expectation that the patient will receive a graft. The criteria for listing are based on overall utility rather than individual benefit, so the criterion for listing is that the patient will have at least a greater than 50% probability of being alive 5 years after transplantation with a quality of life that is acceptable to the patient. Although it is reasonable to offer hope to all patients, this hope should have a reasonable probability of being fulfilled. Listing patients with little likelihood of benefiting from transplantation is not helpful either for the patient, their family, or the other potential liver allograft recipients. While different systems for allocation of donor livers may be more appropriate in other settings, the process in the U.K. seems to deliver satisfactorily.