			Home About us Contact

Donor Surgery (donor + surgery)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

2509 Living Donor Nephrectomies, Morbidity and Mortality, Including the UK Introduction of Laparoscopic Donor Surgery

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 11 2007
V. G. Hadjianastassiou
The worldwide expansion of laparoscopic, at the expense of open, donor nephrectomy (DN) has been driven on the basis of faster convalescence for the donor. However, concerns have been expressed over the safety of the laparoscopic procedure. The UK Transplant National Registry collecting mandatory information on all living kidney donations in the country was analyzed for donations between November 2000 (start of living donor follow-up data reporting) to June 2006 to assess the safety of living DN, after the recent introduction of the laparoscopic procedure in the United Kingdom. Twenty-four transplant units reported data on 2509 donors (601 laparoscopic, 1800 open and 108 [4.3%] unspecified); 46.5% male; mean donor age: 46 years. There was one death 3 months postdischarge and a further five deaths beyond 1 year postdischarge. The mean length of stay was 1.5 days less for the laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). The risk of major morbidity for all donors was 4.9% (laparoscopic = 4.5%, open = 5.1%, p = 0.549). The overall rate of any morbidity was 14.3% (laparoscopic = 10.3%, open = 15.7%, p = 0.001). Living donation has remained a safe procedure in the UK during the learning curve of introduction of the laparoscopic procedure. The latter offers measurable advantages to the donor in terms of reduced length of stay and morbidity. [source]

Is the Cost of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Higher Than Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation?

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2004
Mark W. Russo MD
Background An important long-term consideration for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the expense compared with cadaveric-liver transplantation. LDLT is a more complex procedure than cadaveric transplantation and the cost of donor evaluation, donor surgery, and postoperative donor care must be included in a cost analysis for LDLT. In this study, we compare the comprehensive cost of LDLT with that of cadaveric-liver transplantation. Methods All costs for medical services provided at our institution were recorded for 24 LDLT and 43 cadaveric recipients with greater than 1 year follow-up transplanted between August 1997 and April 2000. The donor costs include donors evaluated and rejected, donors evaluated and accepted, donor right hepatectomy costs, and donor follow-up costs (365 days postdonation). LDLT and cadaveric recipient costs include medical care 90 days pre-LDLT, recipient transplant costs, and recipient follow-up costs (365 days posttransplant) including retransplantation. Cost is expressed as an arbitrary cost unit (CU) that is a value between $500 to $1,500. Results Total LDLT costs (evaluations of rejected donors + evaluations of accepted donors + donor hepatectomy + donor follow-up care for 1 year + pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant] + recipient transplantation + recipient 1-year posttransplant care)= 162.7 CU. Total mean cadaveric transplant costs (pretransplant recipient care [90 days pretransplant] + recipient transplantation [including organ acquisition cost] + recipient 1-year posttransplant care)=134.5 CU, (P = ns) Conclusions The total comprehensive cost of LDLT is 21% higher than cadaveric transplantation, although this difference is not significant. (Transplantation 2003;75:473,476.) [source]

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2009
J. C. Lai
Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure,from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods,of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients. [source]

Anesthesia-Related Complications in Living Liver Donors: The Experience from One Center and the Reporting of One Death

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 10 2008
S. Ozkardesler
Living donor liver transplantation has become an alternative therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Donors are healthy individuals and donor safety is the primary concern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the anesthetic complications and outcomes for our donor cases; we report one death. The charts of the patients who underwent donor hepatectomy from February 1997 to June 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Right hepatectomy (resection of segments 5,8) was done in 101 donors, left lobectomy (resection of segments 2,3) in 11 donors, and left hepatectomy (resection of segments 2,4) in one donor. Minor anesthetic complications were shoulder pain, pruritus and urinary retention related to epidural morphine, and major morbidity included central venous catheter-induced thrombosis of the brachial and subclavian vein, neuropraxia, foot drop and prolonged postdural puncture headache. One of 113 donors died from pulmonary embolism on the 11th postoperative day. This procedure has some major risks related to anesthesia and surgery. Although careful attention will lower complication rate, we have to keep in mind that the risks of donor surgery will not be completely eliminated. [source]