影响围手术期活体肾移植肾功能恢复的供者相关因素分析

目的探讨活体肾移植中围手术期移植肾功能恢复的供者相关影响因素。方法回顾性分析2010年1月至2018年12月于吉林大学第一医院进行的327对活体肾移植供、受者的临床数据资料,比较供者相关因素对围手术期移植肾功能恢复的影响。结果供者行后腹腔镜左侧供肾切取术263例,右侧供肾切取术64例,两组在手术时间、术中失血量、热缺血时间、术后淋巴漏百分比及围手术期移植肾功能恢复等方面差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05),但左侧供肾切取组的手术时间短于右侧供肾切取组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.008)。供肾动脉血管变异对围手术期移植肾功能恢复没有影响(P>0.05),供者年龄、供肾肾小球滤过率(GFR)及供、受者体重指数(BMI)差值与围手术期移植肾功能恢复具有相关性(P值分别为0.006、0.002及<0.001)。多因素分析后,供肾GFR及供、受者BMI差值与围手术期移植肾功能恢复具有相关性(P值分别为0.007及<0.001)。结论供者GFR及供、受者BMI差值是围手术期移植肾功能恢复的独立危险因素。     

经腹腔手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术

目的：介绍经腹腔手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术（HLDN）。方法：供肾者5例，行经腹腔的手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术，总结手术方法。结果：平均手术时间116min，供肾平均热缺血时间2．8min，平均供肾动脉长度1．8cm，平均供肾静脉长度2．7cm。未发生任何手术并发症。术后7d供者恢复出院，3例受者术后第3－12天血肌酐恢复正常，2例受者发生肾功能延迟恢复（DGF）。结论：HLDN结合了单纯腹腔镜供肾摘取术（LDN）和开放供肾摘取术（ODN）的优点。既有切口小，痛苦小和恢复快的微创手术特点，又减少了单纯腹腔镜器械操作的难度，使外科医师更易掌握，显著缩短了手术时间和供肾热缺血时间，保证了供肾质量；同时有利于迅速处理一些紧急情况，减少并发症，提高了供者安全性和手术成功率。     

老年活体供肾移植术后供者安全性及受者移植效果的分析

目的 分析老年活体供肾移植术后供者的安全性及受者的移植效果.方法 回顾性分析251例亲属活体供肾移植的临床资料.根据供者年龄,将251例活体供肾移植分为老年供肾组(≥55岁)和中青年供肾组(<55岁),对手术前后两组供、受者的血清肌酐(Cr)、肾小球滤过率(GFR)、内生肌酐清除率(Ccr)、并发症、平均住院时间以及受者的人/肾存活率、急性排斥反应发生率进行比较和分析.结果 老年供肾组和中青年供肾组供者手术前后血Cr水平的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而Ccr的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).老年供肾组与中青年供肾组供者比较,术前总GFR、留存肾GFR及术后10 d留存肾GFR比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);老年供肾组供者术后10 d与术前的留存肾GFR比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);中青年供肾组供者术后10 d的留存肾GFR较术前明显上升,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).老年供肾组与中青年供肾组受者比较,手术前后各相应时间点的血Cr水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).老年供肾组和中青年供肾组供者平均住院时间分别为(16.67±7.78)d和(16.11±5.89)d(P>0.05),受者平均住院时间分别为(29.61±24.28)d和(28.76±19.27)d(P>0.05).两组受者6个月内急性排斥反应发生率分别为6.50%和5.75%(P>0.05).老年供肾组受者术后死亡1例,中青年供肾组死亡3例,并有1例因急性排斥反应切除移植肾.结论 老年活体供肾移植术前应对供者进行严格的选择,在进行全面系统评估的前提下,可以保证供者术后的安全以及受者的移植效果.     

手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术21例报告

目的评价手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术(HLDN)的手术效果和近期疗效。方法回顾性分析2004年4月至2005年7月采用HLDN方法获取活体供肾21例的临床资料。供者男13例,女8例。年龄31～60岁,平均43岁。其中18例供者为血缘关系亲属供肾,3例为非血缘关系夫妻供肾。通过受者移植后肾功能恢复情况,评价HLDN的效果。结果手术皆取左肾,手术时间100～150 min,失血量30～100 ml。供肾热缺血时间2～3 min,冷缺血时间45～60 min。平均供肾动脉长度2.3 cm,静脉长度3.5 cm。HLDN手术全部成功,无中转开放,无手术并发症,术后6～7 d出院。21例受者肾移植后未发生肾功能延迟恢复,术后1周内肾功能均达到正常值。结论HLDN结合了腹腔镜活体供肾切取术和开放手术活体供肾切取术的优点,既保证了对供者的微创,又保证了供肾质量,有利于推动活体供肾移植的开展。     

经腹膜后入路腹腔镜活体右侧供肾切取术中肾蒂的处理

目的 探讨后腹腔镜活体右侧供肾切取术的肾蒂处理方法及其安全性、临床效果.方法 2009年1月至2012年5月共实施后腹腔镜活体右侧供肾切取62例.回顾性分析供者的一般状况、术中出血量、供肾热缺血时间、手术时间、供肾血管长度、供者住院时间、并发症等.结果 62例供者手术均获得成功,无中转开放手术,无明显术后并发症.受者手术顺利,移植肾功能恢复良好.供者手术时间为(73.5±10.4)min,术中出血量为(30.7±10.4)ml,住院时间为(5.2±1.6)d.供肾热缺血时间为(107.2±24.8)s,腔静脉切口缝合时间为(2.0±0.5)min,供肾动、静脉长度分别为(3.3±0.5)cm和(2.0±0.4)cm.结论 应用后腹腔镜技术结合开放取肾通道处理肾蒂的方法切取带有腔静脉瓣的右侧肾脏,既保证了供者、供肾的安全性,又使受者手术更易顺利进行,取得了良好的临床效果.     

后腹腔镜下亲属活体右侧供肾切取术经验总结

目的探讨后腹腔镜下亲属活体右侧供肾切取术的安全性,并总结相关临床经验。 方法回顾性分析2010年2月至2019年6月解放军总医院第八医学中心实施的14例亲属活体右侧供肾切取术临床资料,其中8例为后腹腔镜下供肾切取(腹腔镜组),6例为经腰部开放供肾切取(开放手术组)。腹腔镜组供者常规采取左侧卧位,腰部采用三套管法穿刺。采用成组t检验比较两组供者手术时间、腔静脉切口缝合时间、供肾动脉长度、供肾静脉长度、供肾热缺血时间、手术出血量和术后住院时间。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果14例亲属活体右侧供肾切取术均成功,两组供者术中均未输血,腹腔镜组供肾切取术中均未中转开腹。腹腔镜组与开放手术组供肾静脉长度分别为(2.2±0.4)和(1.2±0.3)cm,术中出血量分别为(45±12)和(80±10)mL,差异均有统计学意义(t＝1.042和5.781,P均<0.05)。两种术式手术时间、腔静脉切口缝合时间、供肾动脉长度、供肾热缺血时间及术后住院时间差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。截至2019年8月,开放手术组和腹腔镜组供者中位随访时间分别为6个月(3～18个月)和8个月(3～24个月),均健康。受者术前及术后应用巴利昔单抗行免疫诱导治疗,术后免疫抑制方案为CNI＋抗代谢类药物＋糖皮质激素。移植肾功能均于术后2周内恢复,术后均顺利摆脱透析。截至2019年8月,14例受者随访时间3～12个月,期间受者及移植肾功能均正常。 结论亲属活体右侧供肾获取过程中采用腹腔镜联合Satinsky钳技术安全、可行,可较大限度地延长供肾静脉,且术中出血量更少。     

3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的临床分析

目的总结3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的经验,并探讨其临床效果和安全性。方法收集19例3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的临床资料。记录手术时间、术中失血量、肾脏热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度、输尿管长度、切口长度、手术并发症。观察供、受者术后肾功能的情况等。结果 19例活体供肾切取术均在3D后腹腔镜下顺利完成,无术中改为常规腹腔镜和中转开放者。3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术手术时间80.5~125.2(平均102.3)min;术中出血量40.6~90.4(60.8)ml;肾脏热缺血时间100~230(161)s。供肾动脉长度2.6~3.2(2.9)cm;供肾静脉长度2.2~3.0(2.6)cm;供肾输尿管长度8~13(10)cm;切口长度约5~6 cm,伤口愈合良好;供者术后24 h尿量2 000~2 500 ml;术后3 d查血清肌酐轻度增高1例,术后7 d和1个月复查血清肌酐恢复正常。术后住院时间5~7(6)d。移植手术均获成功,未发生移植肾功能延迟恢复。结论 3D腹腔镜手术系统可有效提高术中操作的精准性,3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术安全可行。     

负载供肾抗原的致耐受性树突状细胞延长大鼠移植肾存活时间

目的探讨负载供肾抗原的致耐受性受者树突状细胞(DCs)对移植肾存活时间的影响。方法以BN大鼠为供者,Lewis大鼠为受者,Wistar大鼠为无关供者。将受者的骨髓分离培养,未经其它处理得到的DCs,将其作为DCs1;DCs1经CTLA-4Ig基因重组的复制缺陷型腺病毒(AdvCTLA-4Ig)转染后作为DCs2;DCs1先经BN大鼠供肾抗原负载后再进行AdvCTLA-4Ig转染,作为DCs3。将受者随机分为DCs1、DCs2、DCs3及对照组,每组6只。术前24h,前3组分别注入1×106个DCs1、DCs2和DCs3,对照组不注射DCs。肾移植后观察各组移植肾存活时间,术后第20d检测受者脾细胞对负载供肾抗原及无关供者肾脏抗原DCs的反应。结果DCs1、DCs2,DCs3和对照组的移植肾存活时间分别为(8.1±0.8)d、(8.8±0.9)d、(62.1±13.7)d和(8.6±0.9)d。DCs1、DCs2组与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),DCs3组与对照组比较,移植肾存活时间显著延长(P<0.01)。肾移植术后,DCs3组脾细胞对负载供肾抗原的DCs反应明显低于对照组(P<0.01),而对负载无关供者抗原的DCs反应与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论负载供肾抗原的受者DCs经CTLA-4Ig基因修饰后具有致耐受性,可以抑制受者对供者抗原的免疫反应,明显延长移植肾的存活时间。     

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。     

后腹腔镜技术活体亲属供肾切取的可行性研究(附10例报告)

目的 :探讨利用后腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取的安全性和可行性。方法 :在对供受者进行全面的免疫学检查 ,对供者作详细的安全性评价 ,行SPECT检查了解分侧肾功能 ,用DSA了解肾血管的变异情况之后 ,采用后腹腔镜技术对 10例活体亲属供肾进行切取 ,按常规方法移植给受者。结果 :10例均成功切取左肾并移植给受者 ,平均手术时间 (10 2 .6± 19.3)min ,平均术中出血量 (13.0± 9.8)ml,热缺血时间平均 (14 1.8± 72 .1)s,受体血管开放后供肾均泌尿 ,其中 1例患者移植后 1周发生输尿管远端坏死漏尿 ,再次手术后恢复正常。术后无排斥反应及其他与操作技术有关的并发症发生。结论 :利用腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取对供者损伤小 ,术后恢复快 ,对供肾功能无明显影响 ,技术上安全可行     

Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy the new criterion standard?

HYPOTHESIS: The posttransplantation renal function outcomes between consecutive open donor and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs) are similar and affect living donation. DESIGN: Using the medical records of renal living donor-recipient pairs, 36 consecutive open donor nephrectomies were compared with the subsequent 100 LDNs. Data collected on donor characteristics included demographics (age, race, sex, weight, and height), renal vascular and ureteral anatomical features, surgical information (blood loss, number of blood transfusions, operating time, warm ischemia time, and renal injury), complications, and length of hospital stay. Recipients' data also included renal function information (serum creatinine level on postoperative days 7 and 30) and ureteral complications during the initial hospital stay. SETTING: A not-for-profit tertiary care teaching hospital in a metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Adults who had end-stage renal disease and received a living donation kidney. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, warm ischemia time, blood loss, and posttransplantation serum creatinine level. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the open donor nephrectomy and LDN groups. No right kidney LDNs were done because of the shortness of the right renal vein; and, after the initial experience, left kidneys with more than 2 arteries were excluded. Warm ischemia time was recorded only for LDN, and it was found that a warm ischemia time of 10 minutes or longer was associated with difficulty in extraction and was uniformly associated with elevated mean serum creatinine levels on postoperative day 7. CONCLUSIONS: The length of hospital stay was decreased and cosmetic result enhanced. The number of living donors has increased from 28 in 1997 to 53 in 1998 and to 63 in 1999 at our institution. The length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, and comparable kidney quality indicate that LDN should be the initiating procedure for most patients.     

Laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) preferentially involves the left kidney to optimize vessel length, but occasionally, right nephrectomy is preferred. Right LDN differs markedly in anatomic relations and the need for a fourth port. This retrospective study compares donor outcomes and graft function of right and left LDN and describes the technique. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing right LDN from March 26, 1996 to December 31, 2000 were compared with those undergoing left LDN. Age, height, weight, body mass index, creatinine, creatinine clearance, operative time, warm ischemia time, analgesic requirements, serial postoperative creatinine, time to diet resumption, and hospital stay were compared. A second cohort matched for age, gender, race, and temporal left LDN also were compared with the group undergoing right LDN. RESULTS: No significant differences were found for any of the parameters measured. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that despite substantial differences in the procedures, donor outcome and graft survival are similar for right and left LDN.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Authors from Iran compare various outcomes between laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in kidney transplantation; they carried out a large comparative trial, and found that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy gave better donor satisfaction and morbidity, with equivalent graft outcome. OBJECTIVE: To compare the graft survival, donor and recipient outcome, donor satisfaction, and complications of laparoscopic (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in kidney transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 100 cases each of LDN and ODN were compared. We modified the standard LDN procedure to make it less expensive. RESULTS: The mean (sd) operative duration was 152.2 (33.9) min for ODN and 270.8 (58.5) min for LDN, and the mean duration of kidney warm ischaemia was 1.87 min for ODN and 8.7 min for LDN. Only one LDN required conversion to ODN because of bleeding. The mean follow-up in the LDN and ODN groups was not significantly different (406.1 vs 403.8 days). The mean (sd) score for donor satisfaction was 17.3 (3.5) for ODN and 19.6 (1.0) for LDN. The rate of ureteric complications was 2% for ODN and none for LDN. As determined by serum creatinine levels at 3, 21-30, 90, 180 and 365 days after surgery, graft function was not significantly different between ODN and LDN. Long-term graft survival was 93.8% for LDN and 92.7% for ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ODN, LDN was associated with greater donor satisfaction, less morbidity and equivalent graft outcome.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy increases the supply of living donor kidneys: a center-specific microeconomic analysis

BACKGROUND: A tenet of microeconomics is that new technology will shift the supply curve to the right. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a new technique for removal of living donor kidneys. Centers performing this procedure have noted an increased number of patients presenting for donor evaluation. This has not been previously studied. METHODS: The records of all LDN performed from May 1998 to February 1999 were reviewed. The following variables were examined: sex, age, related vs. unrelated donation, estimated blood loss, i.v. analgesia, length of stay, and time out of work. Donors undergoing traditional open donor nephrectomy during January 1997 to May 1998 served as the control group. A composite cost index was constructed. RESULTS: LDN significantly decreased length of stay, pain, and time out of work; the supply function shifted to the right. Telephone interviews revealed that 47% donated solely because of the LDN procedure. CONCLUSIONS: LDN increases the supply of living donor kidneys.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with a 23-hour stay: a new standard for transplantation surgery

OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed as a 23-hour day surgery protocol. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Living donor renal transplantation is associated with immediate graft function and prolonged graft survival. The recent application of laparoscopic technology to living renal donation has refocused attention on the advantages of this donor source. LDN is associated with decreased donor pain, length of stay, time out of work, and opportunity costs. The authors hypothesized that LDN would be a viable 23-hour stay procedure. METHODS: All living donation procedures since May 1998 have been performed with LDN. The 23-hour protocol was initiated in January 1999. LDNs performed from May 1998 to December 1998 and traditional open donor nephrectomy procedures from May 1996 to May 1998 served as historical controls. The following variables were examined: donor sex, related versus nonrelated donation, operative time, blood loss, length of stay, time out of work, recipient and donor serum creatinine levels, hospital charges, and complications. RESULTS: The 23-hour LDN protocol was associated with high degrees of donor satisfaction. Thirty-six of the 41 donors were discharged within 23 hours; 1 was readmitted. Time out of work was equivalent to that of the control group; graft function was identical among all three comparison groups. Hospital charges were equivalent between the control group and the open nephrectomy group and were significantly decreased in the 23-hour group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed as a 23-hour stay procedure without incurring additional complications or donor dissatisfaction. By further decreasing opportunity costs and disincentives for donation, LDN may increase the number of potential donors appearing for evaluation.     

Beneficial effects of a new fluid regime on kidney function of donor and recipient during laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been associated with delayed graft function compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We have recently shown that the adverse effect of pneumoperitoneum (PP) on hemodynamics could be prevented by a new fluid regime. The aim of this study was to test the effect of this fluid regime on the kidney function of the donor and recipient after LDN and ODN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data of 51 donors undergoing ODN and 59 donors undergoing LDN as well as data from the corresponding recipients. All donors and recipients were treated with a standardized anesthesia and fluid regime. This fluid regime consisted of preoperative overnight hydration together with a bolus of colloid administered before induction of anesthesia and before introduction of PP. Follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Hemodynamics and urine output until nephrectomy were comparable between both groups. Donor kidney function did not differ after ODN and LDN. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft survival, and recipient survival did not differ between open and laparoscopically procured transplants. No adverse effects of the novel fluid regime (eg, pulmonary edema or additional oxygen supply) were observed in the donors. CONCLUSION: In contrast to our earlier findings, the kidney function of the donor and recipient is comparable between ODN and LDN after introduction of a new fluid regime.     

Donor nephrectomy: mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy

BACKGROUND: The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has encouraged the development of less invasive open techniques. Aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes between contemporary cohorts of donors who underwent either mini-incision open or laparoscopic kidney donation. METHODS: From May 2001 to September 2004 data of all living kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Fifty-one donors underwent mini-incision, muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy (MIDN) and 49 donors underwent LDN. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of donors and recipients in the study groups were comparable except for donors' gender. Median incision length in MIDN was 10.5 cm. In two patients LDN was converted to open. MIDN resulted in significantly shorter warm ischemia and operation time (2.5 vs. 6.5 min and 157 vs. 240 min respectively). During MIDN, donors had more blood loss (200 vs. 120 ml, P=0.02). Disposables used for MIDN were cheaper (328 vs. 1784 Euros). In the LDN group 4 (8%) major intraoperative and 2 (4%) major postoperative complications occurred versus no major complications in the MIDN group. Morphine requirement, pain and nausea perception, and time to dietary intake did not significantly differ between the groups. Following MIDN, donors were discharged later (4 vs. 3 days, P=0.02). Transplantation of kidneys procured by either approach led to a similar decline in serum creatinine throughout the first year. One-year graft survival was 100% following MIDN and 86% following LDN (P=0.005). CONCLUSION: MIDN and LDN both lead to satisfactory results. Both techniques can be used to expand living donor programs.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an increasingly common cause for testicular pain and swelling

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is now a well established method for kidney procurement from living donors. In our centre, LDN is currently offered only to donors suitable for a left nephrectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of testicular pain and swelling following LDN.

METHODS

A total of 25 left-sided LDN male patients were assessed in a prospective structured interview together with a control cohort of 25 male patients who had undergone left-sided open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

RESULTS

Data were collected on testicular pain, swelling, numbness, urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction from all 50 patients (100% response rate). Of the 25 LDN patients, 11 (44%) experienced ipsilateral testicular pain and/or swelling. In most instances, pain was of immediate onset, mild to moderate in severity, lasted for a few days to several weeks and was associated with testicular swelling (10 of 11 cases). However, testicular pain and/or swelling were not apparent in ODN patients, with only 2 of 25 (8%) experiencing mild testicular pain, 1 of whom also had swelling.

CONCLUSIONS

Testicular pain and swelling following LDN is a common problem. It is underreported in the literature and should be included in the differential diagnoses of testicular pain and swelling. Further investigation is required to confirm our findings.     

A survey: the prevalence of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at large U.S. transplant centers.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the procedure of choice for live kidney donors. The purpose of this survey therefore was to determine the current practices, attitudes, and plans regarding LDN in high-volume renal transplant centers. METHODS: Medical directors of the 31 highest volume kidney transplant centers were surveyed via telephone. Kidney transplant data for 1998 and 1999 were collected. RESULTS: The surveyed centers performed 5213 transplantations in 1998, representing 43% of all kidney transplantations done nationally. Twelve (39%) of the 31 centers performed LDN in 1998, increasing to 20 (65%) of 31 in 1999. Of 1174 live donor operations performed by the 20 centers in 1999, 365 (31%) were LDNs. Among the surveyed centers, four had no plans to begin an LDN program. The most commonly cited incentive for LDN was "shorter recovery time," whereas the most common disincentive was "concern about graft quality." A combination of observation and animate laboratory was the most commonly reported method of learning the LDN procedure. Six-month follow-up interviews found that 26 (84%) of 31 centers had performed LDN; only 1 of the 31 centers had no plans to perform LDNs. CONCLUSIONS: LDN may be the de facto procedure of choice for live donors within the next year. Efforts should now focus on improving techniques for performing and teaching this procedure.