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.)

Background: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients. Results: There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates. Conclusion: RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN. Results: RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases. Conclusions: RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Human Organ Transplantation Act came into officially force in Bangladesh on April 13, 1999, allowing organ donations from both living and brain-dead donors. The Act was amended by the Parliament on January 8, 2018, with the changes coming into effect shortly afterwards on January 28. The Act was revised to extend a living donor pool from close relatives (e.g., parents, adult sons and daughters, adult brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts from both the paternal and maternal sides, and spouses) to include certain other relatives such as grandparents, grandchildren, and first cousins (Section 2:4). The Act was also revised to allow individuals to prioritize family members in receiving their organs after their death (Section 7c:3). The aim of this paper is not to carry out an ethical analysis of the Act as a whole but only to focus on aspects relating to priority access for family members to organs. Despite Islam encouraging Muslims to be sympathetic, and to save the life of any member of humankind (Quran 5:32), saving the life of a relative through organ donation is even more highly valued. The collective and extended structure of the family impacts on the provisions of the Act that only allows Bangladeshis to legally donate their organs to save the lives of relatives and allows individuals to prioritize family members. Recent progress in the practice of organ transplantation raises a number of ethical dilemmas around the allocation of available organs in the context of organ scarcity. A key purpose of introducing incentive into the system of organ allocation is to increase the number of donations from living relatives and initiation of vital organ donations from brain-dead donors. However, allocation criteria based on a living organ donation incentive system would appear to be unethical because there is no provision in the Act with regard to financial compensation for a distant relative donor's post-operative care in the absence of healthcare coverage. Receiving organs from a distant relative without giving financial compensation for post-operative care places them in a grave health condition and violates the biomedical principle of non-maleficence. An incentive system around brain-dead donors would appear to be ethical as the amended Act allows individuals to prioritize relatives in receiving their organs after death. This provision is intended to initiate the transplantation of vital organs (e.g., kidney, liver, heart, pancreas, bone marrow) from brain-dead donors as families might bear the cost of keeping the organs alive for transplantation. Regular reassessment of the impact of the Act is necessary to maximize the donation rate of transplantable organs using ethical means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Deciding whether to accept a donor with nephrolithiasis is a multifaceted task because of the challenge of finding enough suitable donors while at the same time ensuring the safety of both donors and recipients. Until not long ago, donors with a history of renal stones or with stones emerging during screening on imaging were not considered ideal, but recent guidelines have adopted less stringent criteria for potential donors at risk of stones. This review goes through the problems that need to be approached to arrive at a wise clinical decision, balancing the safety of donors and recipients with the need to expand the organ pool. The risk of declining renal function and worsening stone formation is examined. Documents (consensus statements, guidelines, etc.) on this issue released by the most important medical societies and organizations are discussed and compared. Specific problems of living kidney donation associated with certain systemic (chronic hypercalcemia due to CYP24A1 gene mutations, primary hyperoxaluria, APRT deficiency) and renal (medullary sponge kidney, cystinuria, distal renal tubular acidosis, Dent's disease, Bartter syndrome, familial hypomagnesemia with hypercalciuria and nephrocalcinosis) Mendelian disorders that cause nephrolithiasis are also addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a great effort in the world to find a new drug in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. Turkey has a limited number of basic science studies to discover a new therapeutic drug for HCC. It seems that Turkey is distanced from the global drug discovery race and competition, however, Turkey has the advantage of a wide experience in living donor liver transplantation, like South Korea and Japan. Turkey can plan new studies on HCC, particularly with living donor liver transplantation. Neoadjuvant treatment methods before living donor liver transplantation for advanced tumors would be a good idea for study in Turkey. Because Inonu University has the busiest liver transplantation program in Turkey, the contribution of Inonu University to trials like this can improve the depth of the studies. To conclude, the Inonu University Liver Transplantation Institute has the busiest program in Turkey with 1,600 transplantations in eight years. The program is based on living donor liver transplantations (80%). Living donor liver transplantation for advanced HCC patients is our favorite topic to study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the development and implementation of an initiative at one transplant center to annually assess psychosocial outcomes of living kidney donors. The current analysis focuses on a cohort of adults (n = 208) who donated a kidney at BIDMC between September 2005 and August 2012, in which two post-donation annual assessments could be examined. One and two year post-donation surveys were returned by 59 % (n = 123) and 47 % (n = 98) of LKDs, respectively. Those who did not complete any survey were more likely to be younger (p = 0.001), minority race/ethnicity (p < 0.001), and uninsured at the time of donation (p = 0.01) compared to those who returned at least one of the two annual surveys. The majority of donors reported no adverse physical or psychosocial consequences of donation, high satisfaction with the donation experience, and no donation decision regret. However, a sizable minority of donors felt more pain intensity than expected and recovery time was much slower than expected, and experienced a clinically significant decline in vitality. We describe how these outcomes are used to inform clinical practice at our transplant center as well as highlight challenges in donor surveillance over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

The first successful renal transplant was carried out more than five decades ago between identical twins. At these early days, acute rejection was the limiting factor. Due to tremendous progress in immunosuppressive therapy and surgical technique, today, renal transplantation is the gold standard therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. In fact, in comparison with chronic hemodialysis, renal transplantation offers an increase in quality of life while reducing comorbidities associated with dialysis treatment. Despite numerous beneficial achievements, no further improvement regarding patient outcome can be observed over the last two decades. Graft survival rates remain unchanged. The leading causes for graft loss are chronic allograft nephropathy and death with functioning graft. This might be related to a constant increase of the proportion of donors presenting extended donor criteria as well as a more liberal acceptance of candidates for a renal transplant. In the near future, one has to focus more closely on the posttransplant patient care to minimize factors associated with chronic allograft damage. These include post-transplant diabetes, hyperlipidemia, high blood pressure, cytomegalovirus infection, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate a low-tech blunt liver dissecting technique for living-liver-donor procedures. Thirty three adult-to-adult living-donor operations were performed at Regensburg University and Jordan Hospital, Amman. For the technique of parenchymal dissection, dissecting scissors were used for blunt preparation; branches were closed, carefully pressing into the hepatic parenchyma. Donor, surgical procedure data, and data on liver function and recovery were analyzed and compared to literature. Median procedure time was 280 min (210 to 420 min). Median blood loss was 350 ml (0 to 650 ml). GOT levels decreased from 260 U/l (140 to 510 U/l) on day 1 to 65 U/l (31 to 220 U/l) on day 7. Bilirubin levels were at 2.0 mmol/l (1.29 to 5.99 mmol/l) on day 1 and 1.26 mmol/l (0.63 to 4.70 mmol/l) on day 7. After 12 days (6 to 23), all donors were discharged. There was no donor mortality. One major complication (biliary leakage) and seven minor complications occurred. This technique is a low-tech but efficient donor-dissection technique in living liver transplantation, which is comparable to other well established dissection techniques utilizing technical devices in regards to risk for the donor, performance, and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become a routine treatment option for patients waiting for liver transplantation. In European and North American countries, LDLT for adult recipients is mainly performed with right lobe grafts. Indications, when compared to deceased donor liver transplantation, are controversial. In our institution, patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis, non-resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma, viral hepatitis associated cirrhosis, as well as cholestatic liver and biliary disease are considered good candidates for LDLT. In this overview, donor evaluation, graft selection, and the donor operation with special regard to operative techniques and strategies are discussed. For visualization, a 5-min video sequence of the standard donor operation as performed in our institution is attached. Given the ongoing shortage of donor organs, adult LDLT has become a routine treatment option for patients waiting for liver transplantation. The associated inevitable risk for the healthy donor, however, remains ethically controversial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved a variety of different surgical techniques. Minimal invasive strategies were introduced to benefit the healthy donors. This paper attempts to identify the best possible practise in live kidney donation with special respect to donor safety. We present a single-centre experience of 173 live kidney donations and describe the surgical technique of open retroperitoneal donation in detail and by video sequences. Additionally, the evidence for donor safety (mortality and morbidity) and the integrity of the graft function are reviewed, comparing different surgical techniques for LDN. Focussing on maximal donor safety, a retroperitoneal access seems mandatory. Very detailed informed consent, including the offer for different retrieval techniques, has led to a total of 163 open and 10 hand-assisted retroperitoneal live kidney donations at our institution. Published and own data reveal longer operating and warm ischaemic times for minimal invasive kidney removal when compared with open technique. Adequate perioperative analgesia (peridural catheter) provides comparable patient comfort, duration of hospital stay, complications and graft function although there are some procedure-associated risks for minimal invasive techniques. The special ethical situation of live donation necessitates maximal donor safety. Although open antero-lateral incision and retroperitoneal access does provide some inconveniences for the surgeon, we are convinced that this and the hand-assisted retroperitoneal approach are the only two options for LDN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Since a dialysis patient in Austria still waits on average more than two years for a renal transplant, the question of a transplant from a living donor is very interesting. We differentiate between related and non-related living donors, who are chosen on the basis of medical criteria and emotional ties. Austria’s first three kidney transplants from related donors were performed in 1967. Since then a total of 317 kidneys from genetically related donors have been transplanted until December 31, 2000. Transplants from non-related living donors were performed once in 1982, once in 1990 and since 1995 in a steadily increasing number each year, until they reached 47 by December 31, 2000. The United Network for Organ Sharing calculated the ten-year survival rate for functional grafts for a four-year period (1995-1998) in more than 30,000 renal transplant recipients from HLA-identical twins, non-related living donors, parent and cadaver donors. As anticipated, this study demonstrates that HLA-identical twins (n = 1,581) have the most functional grafts (81 %), followed by non-related donor-recipients (n = 1,704) at 67 % despite their often poor HLA match, parent- child transplants (n = 2,428) at 62 % and cadaver renal grafts (n = 26,178) at 50%. Therefore, medical aspects as well as influences from the psychosocial environment would appear to be decisive for transplantation success. Thus, when choosing from several possible living donors it is absolutely justifiable to choose a donor with a poorer HLA match but good emotional ties. Such a choice requires strict selection criteria, and surgical preparation and follow-up demand the greatest care. While the criteria given in this paper are meant to be guidelines to help in deciding for a live donor, they certainly do not rule out a different approach following critical reflection and participation by the affected parties, namely donor and recipient, as well as their advisors, nephrologist, transplant surgeon and psychotherapist. At the same time we need to make every effort to further intensify the use of cadaver kidneys. Only in this way can we ensure optimal implementation of all the resources available to us for supplying renal grafts to dialysis patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]