Psychosomatische Aspekte der Leberlebendspende

Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons

The objective of this study was to investigate reasons for or against anonymity that are pertinent to kidney paired donations (KPD). We conducted a systematic review of reasons using PubMed and Google Scholar until May 2022 and through snowballing. Inclusion criteria were publications that: 1) discussed organ donation anonymity; 2) was peer-reviewed; 3) presented at least one reason on anonymity. Exclusion criteria: 1) not published in a scientific journal; 2) grey literature and dissertations. Four researchers independently reviewed and selected papers based on the criteria, extracted text passages and coded them into narrow and broad reason types, selected reasons that were valid for kidney paired donations. 50 articles were included, 62 narrow reasons (n = 24 for; n = 38 against) and 13 broad reasons were coded. Broad reasons were: protection against harm, general benefits, gratitude, curiosity, unrealistic to implement, fundamental rights, respect people's wishes, professional neutrality, timing is important, information disclosure, altruism, reciprocity and donation pool. We did not find reasons that justify legal prohibition of donor-recipient interactions for KPD, if they consented to meet. Professional counselling, follow-up and careful evaluations to prevent potential harm.

Clinicians' attitudes and approaches to evaluating the potential living kidney donor-recipient relationship: An interview study

AIM

Careful assessment of the potential donor-recipient relationship is recommended by guidelines to prevent undue coercion, and to ensure realistic expectations and genuine motivations. However, relationships are complex, nuanced and value-laden, and can be challenging to evaluate in living kidney donation. We aimed to describe the attitudes and approaches of transplant clinicians towards assessing the relationship between potential living kidney donors and their recipients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 54 transplant clinicians (nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists) from 32 transplant centres across nine countries including Australia, United States, Canada and New Zealand. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: protecting against vulnerability and premature decisions (ensuring genuine motivation, uncovering precarious dynamics and pre-empting conflict, shared accountability, relying on specialty psychosocial expertise, trusting intimate bonds, tempering emotional impulsivity); safeguarding against coercion (discerning power imbalance, justified inquiry, awareness of impression management); minimizing potential threat to relationships (preserving the bond, giving equitable attention to donors and recipients, ensuring realistic expectations); and ambiguities in making judgments (adjudicating appropriateness and authenticity of relationships, questioning professional intervening, uncertainties in subjective and emotional assessments).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians felt ethically compelled to minimize the risk of undue coercion and to protect donors and recipients when evaluating the donor-recipient relationship. However, disentangling voluntariness and altruism from potential undisclosed pressures to enact societal and family duty, making decisions within this complex, multi-stakeholder context, and avoiding the imposition of undue paternalism and donor autonomy, were challenging. Multidisciplinary expertise and practical strategies for managing uncertainties are required.

[Living liver donor: indications and technical aspects]

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) nowadays represents an important and safe alternative to conventional deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). A major concern related to the LDLT procedure is still represented by donor safety because a serious operation not without risks must be carried out on a healthy individual. In the present review of the indications for LDLT the technical concepts of donor surgery, criteria for donor selection and evaluation and morbidity and mortality results related to the procedure are presented. In general, the indications for LDLT are almost the same as for DDLT. The donor hepatectomy (right, left or left lateral) is presented in five main phases. The reported morbidity rates vary between 10 % and 60 % and are strongly related to the experience of the transplant center. The currently reported postoperative mortality rates for left and right hepatectomy are 0.1 % and 0.5 %, respectively. The results of LDLT are similar if not even better than those for DDLT depending on the specific indications.

[Liver transplantation with living donor : current aspects, perspectives and significance in Germany]

More than 20 years ago living donor liver transplantation was introduced into clinical practice. Specifics of this method were developed initially for children and later on for adults particularly in regions where a liver transplantation program using deceased donors was not readily available. The most sensitive aspect of living donation, namely the danger to a healthy relative in order to perform the transplantation is immanent in the system and, thus, it is definitively a secondary option as compared to deceased organ donation. Following worldwide initial euphoria the numbers have markedly decreased in the western world since the start of the new millennium. In Asian countries in particular, much work has been done to optimize the procedure so that the donor safety and the outcome quality for the recipient have been impressively demonstrated in large patient populations. There is still a severe donor organ shortage and the option to allocate an optimal (partial) organ on an individual basis by living donation has given new impact to the discussion about a further rise in the profile of living donations here as well. The new version of the German transplantation legislation implemented in summer 2012 requires a number of conditions with respect to insurance for living donors. The current state and perspectives are presented here.

Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term health status of donors after right hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes for ALDLT donors are unknown.

METHODS

ALDLT donors undergoing right hepatectomy from April 1998 to June 2007 were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, satisfaction (1-10/worst-best scale), self-esteem, willingness to donate again, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, donor files and cholecystectomy specimens were reviewed. Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three donors were contacted (median age: 36 years; median follow-up: 69 months). 39 (47%) were free of symptoms. The remaining 44 (53%) reported: intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (31%), gastroesophageal reflux associated with left liver hypertrophy (9%), incisional discomfort requiring pain medications (6%), severe depression requiring hospitalization (4%), rib pain affecting lifestyle (2%), and exacerbation of psoriasis (1%). Median satisfaction score was 8. Self-esteem diminished in 5%. Thirty-nine (47%) recommended improvements particularly more detailed informed donor consent and a centralized living donor liver registry. Seventy-eight (94%) were willing to donate again. There were no differences between donors with and without complaints with respect to: donor age, gender, early complications and follow-up time, young-to-old donation, recipient diagnosis of malignancy and death of the recipient. Noninflamed donor cholecystectomy specimens correlated with intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALDLT donors are at risk for long-term complaints that are neither reflected nor related to early complications. This information should be included in both the donor evaluation and the ALDLT decision-making process.