Search

Copyright of Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Nephrologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In Germany more than 12,000 patients are presently waiting for an organ donation. Living donation makes sense for the long waiting time for a kidney, but it is not a permanent solution for the lack of organ donations. In the future topics which should be discussed are intensified public relations, a better family care and the allocation of rights and duties at the German coordinating agency. For all the prospects of success after a living donation the high standards of quality and security, which are targeted by the German donor organization in recipient protection, responsible evaluation of the expanded donor criteria and immunosuppressive therapy are all in favor of post-mortem organ donation. For all the phenomenal chance of success the priority of the post-mortem organ donation is regulated by law. The living donation remains an individual decision of the donor and the personal situation of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the existing organ shortage the option of a kidney transplantation (KTx) in patients with end-stage renal disease is not always possible despite the offer of this therapy. So far the required number of KTx could not be adequately achieved by organ donations from deceased persons. To solve this problem living donation KTx programs have already become established in many transplantation centers. In published reports it has been shown that with the living donation program better results could be achieved in terms of graft function and patient survival compared to cadaver donation KTx. Therefore, living donation KTx allows an optimal alternative to expand the organ pool. The aim of our study is to present the long-term results of our living donation KTx program regarding graft function and patient survival. Finally, the risks of living donation KTx will be discussed based on the reported experiences of other centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Diabetologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: In the context of living donation, the protection of the donor and the outcome are very important aspects. However, the side selection of the donor nephrectomy is also decisive. In this work, the basics of side selection and the question of whether there are differences regarding the left-sided or right-sided donor nephrectomy are considered., Materials and Methods: Living kidney donation data of our center between December 2004 and July 2019 were evaluated in terms of withdrawal side, complications and outcome, as well as the current literature in PubMed. Finally, the results from our center are compared with the current literature., Results: During the investigation period, 152 live donations were carried out in our center. In these cases 66 patients had a left-sided and in 86 cases a right-sided donor nephrectomy. One transplant vein thrombosis occurred in each group. Complications and outcome were similar for the recipient in both groups. It was noticed in the current literature that generally more left-sided donor nephrectomies are performed, most likely due to the preference of the surgeon. Although a low significantly increased risk of transplant vein thrombosis after right-sided donor nephrectomy is described, all authors agree that right-sided donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure with good outcome., Conclusions: Our own results and the current literature show that the right-sided donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure with only a slightly increased risk of complications compared to the left side and therefore can be recommended. It is clearly safe for the donor and organ, with an equivalent outcome for the recipient. The results are also dependent on the experience of the surgeon.

Despite the claimed high organ donation willingness in Germany, the real numbers for organ donation are far below the international average. About 8000 patients in Germany are waiting for a transplant kidney, of which only a fraction, after years of waiting, can be treated with a suitable transplant. Further changes to the transplantation law to improve organ donation in Germany were recently adopted. However, it remains the demand for a reorganization of organ donation towards the opting out solution. The political decision on this is at the time of delivery of the article.