Search

Background: Transplantation is the only treatment offering long-term benefit to patients with chronic kidney failure. Live donor nephrectomy is performed on healthy individuals who do not receive direct therapeutic benefit of the procedure themselves. In order to guarantee the donor's safety, it is important to optimise the surgical approach. Recently we demonstrated the benefit of laparoscopic nephrectomy experienced by the donor. However, this method is characterised by higher in hospital costs, longer operating times and it requires a well-trained surgeon. The hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique may be an alternative to a complete laparoscopic, transperitoneal approach. The peritoneum remains intact and the risk of visceral injuries is reduced. Hand-assistance results in a faster procedure and a significantly reduced operating time. The feasibility of this method has been demonstrated recently, but as to date there are no data available advocating the use of one technique above the other.Methods/design: The HARP-trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled, single-blind trial. The study compares the hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic approach with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The objective is to determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to optimise donor's safety and comfort while reducing donation related costs.Discussion: This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1433. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity., Study Design: Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods., Setting & Participants: 414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery., Factors: Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery., Outcomes: Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity., Results: Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains., Limitations: The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection., Conclusions: This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity., (Copyright © 2017 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Live-kidney donation has a low mortality rate. Evidence suggests that live-kidney donors experience a quality of life (QoL) comparable to or even superior to that of the general population. There is limited information on factors associated with a decrease in QoL in particular for baseline factors, which would improve information to the donor, donor selection, and convalescence., Methods: QoL data on 501 live donors included in three prospective studies between 2001 and 2010 were used. The 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) was used to measure QoL up to 1 year after the procedure. Longitudinal effects on both the mental (MCS) and physical component scales (PCS) were analyzed with multilevel linear regression analyses. Baseline variables were age, gender, body mass index (BMI), pain, operation type, and comorbidity. Other covariates were loss of the graft, glomerular filtration rate, and recipient complications., Results: After 1 year we observed a small decrease in PCS (effect size = -0.24), whereas the MCS increased (effect size = 0.32). Both PCS and MCS were still well above the norm of the general Dutch population. Factors associated with a change in PCS were BMI (Cohen's d = -0.17 for 5 BMI points) and age (d = -0.13 for each 10 years older)., Conclusions: Overall, QoL after live-donor nephrectomy is excellent. A lowered PCS is related to age and body weight. Expectations towards a decreased postoperative QoL at 1 year are unjustified. However, one should keep in mind that older and obese donors may develop a reduced physical QoL after live-kidney donation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked., (© 2017 Steunstichting ESOT.)

To establish the outcome of live kidney donors 5 years after donation, we investigated the risk for progressive renal function decline and quality of life (QoL). Data on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine, hypertension, QoL and survival were assessed in a prospective cohort of 190 donors, who donated between 2008 and 2010. Data were available for >90%. The mean age predonation was 52.8 ± 11.5 years, 30 donors having pre-existent hypertension. The mean follow-up was 5.1 ± 0.9 years. Eight donors had died due to non-donation-related causes. After 5 years, the mean eGFR was 60.2 (95% CI 58.7-62.7) ml/min/1.73 m 2 , with a median serum creatinine of 105.1 (95% CI 102.5-107.8) μmol/l. eGFR decreased to 33.6% and was longitudinally lower among men than women and declining with age (P < 0.001), without any association on QoL. Donors with pre-existent and new-onset hypertension demonstrated no progressive decline of renal function overtime compared to nonhypertensives. No donors were found with proteinuria, microalbuminuria or at risk for end-stage renal disease. After an initial decline postdonation, renal function remained unchanged overtime. Men and ageing seem to affect renal function overtime, while decreased renal function did not affect QoL. These data support further stimulation of living kidney donation programmes as seen from the perspective of donor safety., (© 2016 Steunstichting ESOT.)

Previously reported short-term results after live kidney donation show no negative consequences for the donor. The incidence of new-onset morbidity takes years to emerge, making it highly likely that this will be missed during short-term follow-up. Therefore, evidence on long-term outcome is essential. A 10-year follow-up on renal function, hypertension, quality of life (QOL), fatigue, and survival was performed of a prospective cohort of 100 donors. After a median follow-up time of 10 years, clinical data were available for 97 donors and QOL data for 74 donors. Nine donors died during follow-up of unrelated causes to donation, and one donor was lost to follow-up. There was a significant decrease in kidney function of 12.9 ml/min (P < 0.001) at follow-up. QOL showed significant clinically relevant decreases of 10-year follow-up scores in SF-36 dimensions of physical function (P < 0.001), bodily pain (P = 0.001), and general health (P < 0.001). MFI-20 scores were significantly higher for general fatigue (P < 0.001), physical fatigue (P < 0.001), reduced activity (P = 0.019), and reduced motivation (P = 0.030). New-onset hypertension was present in 25.6% of the donors. Donor outcomes are excellent 10 years post-donation. Kidney function appears stable, and hypertension does not seem to occur more frequently compared to the general population., (© 2015 Steunstichting ESOT.)

Background: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard for live-donor nephrectomy, as it results in a short convalescence time and increased quality of life. However, intraoperative safety has been debated, as severe complications occur incidentally. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) is an alternative approach, combining the safety of hand-guided surgery with the benefits of endoscopic techniques and retroperitoneal access. We assessed the best approach to optimize donors' quality of life and safety., Methods: In two tertiary referral centers, donors undergoing left-sided nephrectomy were randomly assigned to HARP or LDN. Primary endpoint was physical function, one of the dimensions of the Short Form-36 questionnaire on quality of life, at 1 month postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included intraoperative events and operation times. Follow-up was 1 year., Results: In total, 190 donors were randomized. Physical function at 1 month follow-up did not significantly differ between groups (estimated difference, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 7.68; P=0.55). HARP resulted in significantly shorter skin-to-skin time (mean, 159 vs. 188 min; P<0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (2 vs. 5 min; P<0.001) and a lower intraoperative event rate (5% vs. 11%, P=0.117). Length of stay (both 3 days; P=0.135) and postoperative complication rate (8% vs. 8%; P=1.00) were not significantly different. Potential graft-related complications did not significantly differ (6% vs. 13%; P=0.137)., Conclusions: Compared with LDN, left-sided HARP leads to similar quality of life, shorter operating time, and warm ischemia time. Therefore, we recommend HARP as a valuable alternative to the laparoscopic approach for left-sided donor nephrectomy.

Background: Expanding the use of elderly live donors may help meet the demand for kidney transplants. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the surgical procedure on the quality of life (QOL) of elderly donors compared with younger donors., Methods: Alongside three prospective studies (two randomized) running between May 2001 and October 2010, we asked 501 live donors to fill out the Short Form-36 questionnaire preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. We defined live donors 60 years or older as elderly. Between-group analyses regarding QOL were adjusted for baseline values and gender., Results: One hundred thirty-five donors were older and 366 donors were younger than 60 years. The response rate was high, with 87% at 12 months postoperatively. Elderly donors less often scored as American Society of Anaesthesiology classification 1 (60% vs. 81%; P<0.001) indicating a higher rate of minor comorbidity. At 1 month postoperatively, between-group analysis showed a significant advantage in QOL in favor of the elderly group regarding the dimensions "bodily pain" (7 points; P=0.001), "role physical" (18 points; P<0.001), and "vitality" (5 points; P=0.008). At 3 months, "bodily pain" (3 points, P=0.04) and "role physical" (8 points, P=0.02) were still in favor of the older group. At 6 and 12 months, "physical function" was in favor of the younger group (3 and 5 points, respectively; P=0.04 and P<0.001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that elderly donors recover relatively fast. The perspective of excellent postoperative QOL may help convince elderly individuals to donate.

Long-term physical and psychosocial effects of laparoscopic and open kidney donation are ill defined. We performed long-term follow-up of 100 live kidney donors, who had been randomly assigned to mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (MIDN) or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Data included blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, quality of life (SF-36), fatigue (MFI-20) and graft survival. After median follow-up of 6 years clinical and laboratory data were available for 47 donors (94%) in both groups; quality of life data for 35 donors (70%) in the MIDN group, and 37 donors (74%) in the LDN group. After 6 years, mean estimated glomerular filtration rates did not significantly differ between MIDN (75 mL/min) and LDN (76 mL/min, p = 0.39). Most dimensions of the SF-36 and MFI-20 did not significantly differ between groups at long-term follow-up, and most scores had returned to baseline. Twelve percent of the donors reported persistent complaints, but no major complications requiring surgical intervention. Five-year death-censored graft survival was 90% for LDN, and 85% for MIDN (p = 0.50). Long-term outcome of live kidney donation is excellent from the perspective of both the donor and the recipient., (©2010 The Authors Journal compilation©2010 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness remains an issue surrounding the introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN)., Methods: In a randomized controlled trial the cost-effectiveness of LDN versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was determined. Fifty donors were included in each group. All in-hospital costs were documented. Postoperatively, case record forms were sent to the donors during 1-year follow-up to record return-to-work and societal costs. To offset costs against quality of life, the Euroqol-5D questionnaire was administered preoperatively and 3, 7, 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days postoperatively., Results: Mean total costs were euro6,090 (US$7,308) after LDN and euro4,818 ($5,782) after ODN (P<0.001). Disposables influenced the cost difference most. Mean productivity loss was 68 and 75 days after LDN and ODN respectively, corresponding to euro783 ($940) gained per donor after LDN. The main gain in quality of life in the LDN group was realized within 4 weeks postoperatively. LDN resulted in a mean gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years at mean costs of euro1,271 ($1,525) and euro488 ($586) from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective, respectively. This implies that one additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year after LDN costs about euro16,000 ($19,200) from a societal point of view and about euro41,000 ($49,200) from a health-care perspective. Activities other than work were resumed significantly earlier after LDN (66 vs. 91 days, P=0.01)., Conclusion: In addition to a clinically relevant donor-experienced benefit from LDN, this technique appeared, given a societal perspective, a cost-efficient procedure mainly due to less productivity losses.

Objective: Determining possible differences in living donor nephrectomy procedures: laparoscopy against mini-incision concerning discomfort to the donor and the maintenance of good graft function., Design: Blind randomized study., Method: In two university medical centres, one hundred living kidney donors were randomly assigned to either total laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or mini-incision muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy. Primary outcome was physical fatigue measured with the 'Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory' (MFI-20) during one-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were physical function measured with the 'Short form-36' questionnaire, postoperative hospital stay, amount of pain, operating times and graft and patient survival., Results: Donors who underwent laparoscopy experienced less fatigue (difference: -1.3; 95% CI: -2.4 - (-0.1)) and physical function was better (difference: 6.2; 95% CI: 2.0-10.3) during one-year follow-up. Those donors who underwent laparoscopy required less morphine (16 mg versus 25 mg; p = 0.005) and the duration of hospital stay was shorter (3 versus 4 days; p = 0.003). The laparoscopic procedure resulted in a longer operation time (221 versus 164 min; p < 0.001) a longer first warm ischaemia time (6 versus 3 min; p < 0.001) and less blood loss (100 versus 240 ml; p < 0.001). Recipient renal function and one-year graft survival rates did not differ. The number of preoperative and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between both surgery techniques. Conversions did not occur., Conclusion: Donor nephrectomy through laparoscopy led to less fatigue and a better quality of life compared with the open procedure. The safety factors for donors and recipients were comparable for both techniques. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is therefore the better surgical choice for kidney donor programmes with living donors.

Objectives: To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function., Design: Single blind, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Two university medical centres, the Netherlands., Participants: 100 living kidney donors., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival., Results: Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.

Previously, we demonstrated that in acute interstitial rejection, immunohistological staining of renal allograft biopsies with the CD14 mAb WT14, reacting with human monocytes/macrophages, shows a characteristic peritubular increase of positive cells. To test the diagnostic value of this CD14 positivity, we compared, in 154 unselected renal allograft biopsies, the extent of peritubular WT14 staining with (a) the original histological diagnosis, made with knowledge of clinical data, (b) the retrospectively and blindly scored histological diagnosis according to the criteria of the Banff classification, and (c) the eventual clinical diagnosis, which included evaluation of the response to therapy. The extent of peritubular WT14 positivity, blindly scored on cryostat sections of the frozen part of the biopsies, correlated positively with the probability of acute rejection (AR). When using a cutoff of 70% WT14 positivity for the diagnosis of AR, as extracted from a receiver operating characteristic curve, the WT14 diagnosis had a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 56%, compared with the original histological diagnosis. Compared with the Banff diagnosis of AR (grade I-III), these values were 95% and 47%, and compared with the clinical diagnosis, 84% and 63%, respectively. The WT14 diagnosis essentially corrected the original histological diagnosis in 7 cases, and was consistent with the eventual diagnosis in 5 equivocal cases. We conclude that the extent of peritubular CD14 positivity can be used as a marker for AR and can serve as a valuable additional criterion for AR in the histological examination of renal allograft biopsies.

Acute interstitial rejection (AIR) of renal allografts is accompanied by a characteristic peritubular increase in macrophages, which can be identified with the CD14 monoclonal antibody (mAb) WT14 in cryostat sections. Since frozen tissue is not always available, we tested whether this increase can also be demonstrated in Bouin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsies, using the CD68 antimacrophage mAb KP1, which can also be applied to paraffin sections. Sections of 16 biopsies with AIR and 11 controls were stained with KP1. In 25 of the 27 biopsies, macrophages were strongly positive for KP1. Two AIR biopsies were completely negative, probably due to prolonged fixation. In the remaining 14 AIR biopsies, the number of KP1-positive cells was significantly higher than in the controls [1184 +/- 410 per mm2 (mean +/- SD) vs 112 +/- 126 per mm2]. We conclude that, especially in cases in which frozen tissue is not available, the demonstration of increased numbers of monocytes/macrophages with mAb KP1 can be a helpful adjunct in the histological diagnosis of AIR in routinely processed renal biopsies.

We have previously reported that during acute rejection of renal allografts T lymphocytosis and increased HLA-DR expression on tubular epithelial cells can be demonstrated in urinary sediments by incubating cytospin preparations with monoclonal antibodies against T cells and HLA-DR antigen in an indirect alkaline phosphatase technique. We now tested whether immunocytological analysis of urinary sediments can be used to differentiate acute rejection from other causes of declining graft function. For this we retrospectively selected, from a series of urinary samples that were taken either at random or as part of a longitudinal study in unselected graft recipients, those specimens that were taken at the time of increasing creatinine levels, and compared the original immunocytological diagnosis, made without knowledge of clinical data, with the final clinical one. In 44 of 74 evaluable cases an immunocytological diagnosis of rejection was made, which in 37 patients was consistent with the eventual clinical diagnosis. In 28 of 30 cases the diagnosis no rejection proved to be correct. This indicates a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 80% for the immunocytological diagnosis of rejection. Of 38 patients who underwent a renal core biopsy, the immunocytological diagnosis was consistent with the histological diagnosis in 36 cases (31 rejections, 5 no rejections). In this subgroup the sensitivity of the immunocytology was 97% and the specificity 83%. We conclude that immunocytological examination of urinary sediments in renal allograft recipients can be a valuable new tool in discriminating acute interstitial rejection from other causes of deteriorating graft function.

Since acute interstitial rejection (AIR) of renal allografts is accompanied by an increase of macrophages in the graft the diagnostic value of immunohistological staining of biopsy specimens with WT14, a new monoclonal antibody of the CD14 cluster directed against monocytes/macrophages, with increased affinity for activated cells, has been tested retrospectively. With an indirect immunoperoxidase technique on frozen sections a diffuse interstitial increase of WT14-positive cells was seen, with a characteristic peritubular pattern, in all 44 patients with clinically and histologically proven AIR. This pattern was not seen in normal kidneys (n = 10), or in biopsy specimens from patients with proven cyclosporin nephrotoxicity (n = 9), chronic vascular rejection (n = 13), or various other renal diseases (n = 60). Comparative staining with other monoclonal antibodies against monocytes/macrophages showed a variable, mostly weak or less specific staining pattern than did WT14. The increased staining with WT14 proved to be a better indicator of AIR than increased HLA-DR staining on tubular epithelial cells.