Search

Background: Psychosocial evaluation is an important part of the live organ donor evaluation process, yet it is not standardized across institutions, and although tools exist for the psychosocial evaluation of organ recipients, none exist to assess donors., Objective: We set out to develop a semistructured psychosocial evaluation tool (the Live Donor Assessment Tool, LDAT) to assess potential live organ donors and to conduct preliminary analyses of the tool's reliability and validity., Methods: Review of the literature on the psychosocial variables associated with treatment adherence, quality of life, live organ donation outcome, and resilience, as well as review of the procedures for psychosocial evaluation at our center and other centers around the country, identified 9 domains to address; these domains were distilled into several items each, in collaboration with colleagues at transplant centers across the country, for a total of 29 items. Four raters were trained to use the LDAT, and they retrospectively scored 99 psychosocial evaluations conducted on live organ donor candidates. Reliability of the LDAT was assessed by calculating the internal consistency of the items in the scale and interrater reliability between raters; validity was estimated by comparing LDAT scores between those with a "positive" evaluation outcome and "negative" outcome., Results: The LDAT was found to have good internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and showed signs of validity: LDAT scores differentiated the positive vs. negative outcome groups., Conclusions: The LDAT demonstrated good reliability and validity, but future research on the LDAT and the ability to implement the LDAT prospectively is warranted., (Copyright © 2015 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inclusion of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) with a right hepatectomy (RH) in live donor liver transplantation improves venous drainage of the anterior sector of the graft. Its long-term effects on donor left liver (LL) regeneration are not well described., Methods: Donors who underwent RH with MHV (MHV+, n = 12) were compared with donors who underwent RH with preservation of the MHV (MHV-, n = 24). Peri-operative complications and volume of the entire liver and individual segments were evaluated at 1 year post-donation., Results: There was a trend towards a higher complication rate in the MHV+ group (41% versus 25%), without reaching statistical significance (P = 0.3). Males, high body mass index (BMI) and a smaller residual liver volume (RLV) were predictors for greater LL regeneration. MHV+ donors had impaired regeneration of segment 4 (S4) at 1 year, and compensatory greater left lateral segment regeneration. The absence of venous drainage of S4 (V4) to left hepatic vein (LHV) was a predictor of impaired S4 regeneration., Conclusions: Regeneration of S4 is impaired in MHV+ donors. Caution should be taken when considering MHV removal on donors with dominant S4, especially on those with potential increased demand for liver regeneration, such as males, higher BMI and a smaller RLV., (© 2014 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation is considered a safe and effective means to treat end-stage renal disease, and has now exceeded the number of deceased donor kidney transplantations performed annually. Living donor liver transplantation is more controversial and has received criticism in the medical and lay community. Studies focus on recipient outcomes and medical safety. The impact of the donation on donors is not well understood., Objective: To compare experiences from both kidney and liver living donors, including their motivation, perceived risks, and postoperative experience., Methods: Questionnaires about the donation experience were mailed to 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and 85 patients who underwent hepatectomy at a large academic medical center. Results of kidney and liver donors were compared., Results: No differences were found in mean age, marital status, ethnicity, relationship to the recipient, and employment status of the 2 groups. Women were more prevalent in both groups. The most common motivating factor in both kidney and liver donors was "because it was family," 81% and 82%, respectively. Kidney donors describe the decision to donate as easy compared to the liver donors (P = .049). In neither group did donors feel pressure to donate or have family conflicts regarding their decision to donate. Both groups felt they were well informed of the risks. Neither group described unexpected problems, and neither group regretted their decision to donate and would do it again if asked., Conclusion: Donors in both groups reported favorable outcomes. A greater concern for risk of death, bleeding, altered appearance, and infection existed among liver donors compared to kidney donors. The actual outcomes were better than the perceived risks.

Live donors are becoming an increasingly important source of donor organs in liver transplantation; however, long-term functional aspects of recovery from donor right hepatectomy are unknown. We analyzed donor outcomes at 1-year follow-up. We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 70 right hepatectomy donors. Six-week and 1-year postoperative follow-up results were compared to preoperative baseline values. Ultrasonography was performed in all donors at 6 weeks and as clinically indicated. All donors were alive and well at the end of the study period. Of 66 right hepatic donors, only 22 (32%) were fully compliant with a 1-year follow-up visit. All those not compliant were contacted by phone. All complications except 1 (late finding of portal vein thrombosis) occurred in the perioperative (90-day) period. The incidence of bile leak was 4.3%, incisional hernia 20%, and autologous transfusion 1.0%. There were no aborted procedures. In those compliant with full 1-year follow-up, total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were normal in 97%. A total of 5 donors were noted to have persistence of asymptomatic thrombocytopenia beyond the perioperative period (90 days). These were investigated with Doppler sonography. Sonography was unremarkable in 3 of the 5, while 2 had abnormal findings: splenomegaly alone in 1, and splenomegaly with portal vein thrombosis in the other. Magnetic resonance angiography was performed in both, and the patient with portal vein thrombosis underwent endoscopy, which failed to reveal varices. Neither has clinical portal hypertension. Both remain asymptomatic albeit with stable thrombocytopenia. In conclusion, the majority of complications after donor right hepatectomy occur in the perioperative period. Later findings may include asymptomatic thrombocytopenia, with an incidence possibly as high as 23%, though the significance of this finding remains uncertain. Larger-scale studies are needed to confirm the true incidence and clinical significance of persistent thrombocytopenia in the donor hepatectomy population. Strategies to improve compliance with 1-year follow-up visits need to be developed.