Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1052–1054 | Cite as

Impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy on donor preoperative decision-making and postoperative quality of life and psychosocial outcomes

  • Christoph TroppmannEmail author
  • William K. JohnstonIII
  • Jonathan L. Pierce
  • John P. McVicar
  • Richard V. Perez
Letter to the Editors

Sirs,

We read with great interest the study by Neuhaus et al. reporting on live kidney donors (that had donated by open nephrectomy) and their high degree of satisfaction with the predonation decision-making process, along with improved postdonation relationships with their partners and the recipient children [1].

One question that this valuable and insightful study was unable to answer was whether the recent introduction of the less invasive laparoscopic technique (which has rapidly become the standard of care) [2, 3] has had any additional effects on the decision-making process and postoperative family dynamics and quality of life of those donating a kidney to a pediatric recipient. Interestingly, in adult-to-adult live donor kidney transplantation, several studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not only significantly decrease postoperative morbidity [4], but may therefore also have contributed to the steady increase of live donor kidney transplants...

Keywords

Live Donor Donor Nephrectomy Live Donor Kidney Live Donor Kidney Transplant Laparoscopic Nephrectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Neuhaus TJ, Wartmann M, Weber M, Landolt MA, Laube GF, Kemper MJ (2005) Psychosocial impact of living-related kidney transplantation on donors and partners. Pediatr Nephrol 20:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Troppmann C, McBride MA, Baker TJ, Perez RV (2005) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a risk factor for delayed function and rejection in pediatric kidney recipients? A UNOS analysis. Am J Transplant 5:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Troppmann C, Pierce JL, Wiesmann KM, Butani L, Makker SP, McVicar JP, Wolfe BM, Perez RV (2002) Early and late recipient graft function and donor outcome after laparoscopic vs open adult live donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation. Arch Surg 137:908–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ratner LE, Hiller J, Sroka M, Weber R, Sikorsky I, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR (1997) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation. Transplant Proc 29: 3402–3403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schweitzer EJ, Wilson J, Jacobs S, Machan CH, Philosophe B, Farney A, Colonna J, Jarrell BE, Bartlett ST (2000) Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 232:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuo PC, Johnson LB (2000) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy increases the supply of living donor kidneys: a center-specific microeconomic analysis. Transplantation 69:2211–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    (2004) Annual Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTS): Transplant Data 1994–2003. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation, Rockville, MD; United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA; University Renal Research and Education Association, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pradel FG, Limcangco MR, Mullins CD, Bartlett ST (2003) Patients’ attitudes about living donor transplantation and living donor nephrectomy. Am J Kidney Dis 41:849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ku JH (2005) Health-related quality of life of living kidney donors: review of the short form 36-health questionnaire survey. Transpl Int 18:1309–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pace KT, Dyer SJ, Stewart RJ, Honey RJ, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J (2003) Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 17:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kärrfelt HME, Berg UB, Lindblad FIE (2000) Renal transplantation in children: Psychological and donation-related aspects from the parental perspective. Pediatr Transplant 4:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franklin PM, Crombie AK (2003) Live related renal transplantation: Psychological, social, and cultural issues. Transplantation 76:1247–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Troppmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • William K. JohnstonIII
    • 2
  • Jonathan L. Pierce
    • 1
  • John P. McVicar
    • 1
  • Richard V. Perez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California, Davis, Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Minimally Invasive and Endoscopic UrologyEvanston Northwestern HospitalEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations