Psychosocial and Physical Impairment After Mini-Incision Open and Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Study

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Results of the prospective multicenter SoLKiD Cohort Study indicate bio-psycho-social outcome risks to kidney donors 12 months after donation

The outcome after living kidney donation was assumed to be comparable to that of the general population. However, recent register studies reveal negative changes in kidney function, quality of life and fatigue. Avoiding methodological issues of previous studies, the Safety of the Living Kidney Donor (SoLKiD) cohort study analyzed the outcome of donors in a multicenter and interdisciplinary fashion. Donor data were collected pre-donation and two-, six- and 12-months post-donation in 20 German transplantation centers. Primary parameters were kidney function, quality of life, and fatigue. Secondary endpoints were blood pressure, hemoglobin, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, depression and somatization. Parameters were analyzed with non-parametric statistical tests and a mixed model regression for changes in time, their clinical relevance and interaction encompassing 336 donors with mean age of 52 years. Most of the physical secondary parameters, depression, and quality of life showed little or no changes and regained their pre-donation level. Kidney function decreased significantly with a 37% loss of glomerular filtration rate and an increase of donors with chronic kidney disease stage 3 from 1.5% pre-donation to about 50%. Donors consistently showed increased fatigue and somatization. Mental fatigue increased from 10.6% to 28.1%. The main influencing factors for decreased kidney function and increased fatigue were their respective pre-donation levels, and donor age for kidney function and subject stress level in fatigue. Thus, our study showed that a significant number of donors developed clinically relevant changes in physical and mental health and emphasizes the urgent need to inform potential donors about these risks.

Psychosocial consequences of living kidney donation: a prospective multicentre study on health-related quality of life, donor-recipient relationships and regret

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have indicated decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) shortly after kidney donation, returning to baseline in the longer term. However, a subgroup of donors experiences persistent HRQoL problems. To identify which HRQoL aspects are impacted most by the donation and to identify at-risk donors, more specific insight into psychosocial donation consequences is needed.

METHODS

The current study examined the HRQoL course, donor-perceived consequences of donation for donors, recipients and donor-recipient relationships, and regret up to 12 months post-donation in donors from seven Dutch transplantation centres. Kidney donor candidates (n = 588) completed self-report questionnaires early in the screening procedure, of which 361 (61%) donated their kidney.

RESULTS

Data for 230 donors (64%) with complete assessments before donation and 6 and 12 months post-donation were analysed. Results indicated that donor physical HRQoL was comparable at all time points, except for an increase in fatigue that lasted up to 12 months post-donation. Mental HRQoL decreased at 6 months post-donation, but returned to baseline at 12 months. Donors reported large improvements in recipient's functioning and a smaller influence of the recipient's kidney disease or transplantation on the donor's life over time. A subgroup experienced negative donation consequences with 14% experiencing regret 12 months post-donation. Predictors of regret were more negative health perceptions and worse social functioning 6 months post-donation. The strongest baseline predictors of higher fatigue levels after donation were more pre-donation fatigue, worse general physical functioning and a younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should examine predictors of HRQoL after donation to improve screening and to provide potential interventions in at-risk donors.

Patterns and predictors of fatigue following living donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

This study sought to identify the prevalence, pattern, and predictors of clinical fatigue in 193 living kidney donors (LKDs) and 20 healthy controls (HCs) assessed at predonation and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation. Relative to HCs, LKDs had significantly higher fatigue severity (P = .01), interference (P = .03), frequency (P = .002), and intensity (P = .01), and lower vitality (P < .001), at 1-month postdonation. Using published criteria, significantly more LKDs experienced clinical fatigue at 1 month postdonation, compared to HCs, on both the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (60% vs. 37%, P < .001) and SF-36 Vitality scale (67% vs. 16%, P < .001). No differences in fatigue scores or clinical prevalence were observed at other time points. Nearly half (47%) reported persistent clinical fatigue from 1 to 6 months postdonation. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs presenting for evaluation with a history of affective disorder and low vitality, those with clinical mood disturbance and anxiety about future kidney failure after donation, and those with less physical activity engagement were at highest risk for persistent clinical fatigue 6 months postdonation. Findings confirm inclusion of fatigue risk in existing OPTN informed consent requirements, have important clinical implications in the care of LKDs, and underscore the need for further scientific examination in this population.

Multivariate Analysis of Health-related Quality of Life in Donors After Live Kidney Donation

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.

Enhanced Recovery Open vs Laparoscopic Left Donor Nephrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare recovery outcomes between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy within a specified enhanced recovery program (ERP) for left kidney donations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A phase III randomized trial was conducted between January 2013 and June 2015; eligible left-side donors were randomized to laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy in a 1:1 ratio with recovery optimized within a standardized ERP. The primary outcome was patient-reported measure of physical fatigue, as measured by the physical fatigue domain of the translated Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory 20. Secondary outcomes included other donor recovery outcomes, postoperative pain scores, hospital stay, perioperative complications, and graft outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 224 donors (laparoscopy, n = 113; open surgery, n = 111) were randomly allocated. Six weeks postoperatively, physical fatigue domain scores in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory 20 were significantly lower in the LDN group (mean: laparoscopy, 8.2 ± 3.2 vs open surgery, 13.05 ± 2.9) (P = .007). Median total hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the LDN group (median: laparoscopy, 2; interquartile range, 1-5 vs open surgery, 4; interquartile range, 2-9 days) (P = .002). LDN was associated with less pain scores and less non-opioid analgesic requirements. Warm ischemia times were not significantly different in both groups (mean: laparoscopy, 2.5 ± 0.8 vs open surgery, 2.2 ± 0.6) (P = .431).

CONCLUSION

Even when optimized within an ERP, LDN was associated with less general and physical fatigue and better physical function at 6 weeks postoperatively when compared with open surgery for left kidney donations.

LOng-term follow-up after liVE kidney donation (LOVE) study: a longitudinal comparison study protocol

Background

The benefits of live donor kidney transplantation must be balanced against the potential harm to the donor. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to study the long-term consequences of kidney donation.

Methods

The “LOng-term follow-up after liVE kidney donation” (LOVE) study is a single center longitudinal cohort study on long-term consequences after living kidney donation. We will study individuals who have donated a kidney from 1981 through 2010 in the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. In this time period, 1092 individuals donated a kidney and contact information is available for all individuals. Each participating donor will be matched (1:4) to non-donors derived from the population-based cohort studies of the Rotterdam Study and the Study of Health in Pomerania. Matching will be based on baseline age, gender, BMI, ethnicity, kidney function, blood pressure, pre-existing co-morbidity, smoking, the use of alcohol and highest education degree. Follow-up data is collected on kidney function, kidney-related comorbidity, mortality, quality of life and psychological outcomes in all participants.

Discussion

This study will provide evidence on the long-term consequences of live kidney donation for the donor compared to matched non-donors and evaluate the current donor eligibility criteria.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR3795.

Long-term, self-reported health outcomes in kidney donors

Background

The wide use of healthy persons as kidney donors calls for awareness of risks associated with donation. Live kidney donation may impair quality of life (QOL) and result in fatigue. Long-term data on these issues are generally lacking in the donor population. Thus we aimed to investigate long-term self-reported health outcomes in a nationwide donor cohort.

Methods

We assessed self-reported QOL, fatigue and psychosocial issues after donation in 217 donors representing 63 % of those who donated 8–12 years ago. QOL was measured using the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and psychosocial issues using donor specific questions. For each of the 8 domains of SF-36 and the 5 domains of MFI, we performed generalized linear regression.

Results

Donors scored high on QOL with mean scores between 63.9 and 91.4 (scale 1–100) for the 8 subscales. Recognition from family and friends was associated with higher QOL scores in four domains. There were no significant gender differences. Fatigue scores were generally low. Females generally scored higher than males on all five dimensions of fatigue, although significantly only on two. Recipient still alive was associated with lower scores on mental fatigue. Regretting donors scored higher than average on all domains of fatigue. Recipient death, worries about own health and worsened relationship with the recipient influenced willingness to donate in retrospect. Donor age did not affect long-term health outcomes.

Conclusions

Eight till 12 years after donation QOL scores were generally high and improved with recogniton from family and friends. Fatigue was independent of donor age and more pronounced in females and in those who regretted donation.

The Course and Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life in Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A better understanding of the course and risk factors for impaired long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL; ie, physical, psychological, and social-relational functioning) after kidney donation might help clinicians improve the care of live kidney donors. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes prospective studies about the course and predictors of HRQoL in living kidney donors. Studies indicate that shortly after donation, donors have lower HRQoL, with minor to moderate changes in psychological and social-relational functioning and major changes in physical functioning. At 3-12 months after donation, HRQoL returned to baseline or was slightly reduced, particularly for fatigue, but scores were still comparable to general population norms. Results were mainly robust across surgery techniques. A limited number of studies examined risk factors for impaired HRQoL, with low psychological functioning before donation as the most consistent predictor. Based on these results, clinicians can inform potential donors that, on average, kidney donors have high long-term HRQoL; however, donors with low psychological functioning at baseline are those most at risk of impaired long-term HRQoL. Future studies should focus on other potentially relevant predictors of postdonation HRQoL, including donor eligibility criteria and donor-recipient relationships, to optimize screening and interventions for donors at risk.

Laparoscopy, dorsal lumbotomy and flank incision live donor nephrectomy: comparison of donor outcomes

BACKGROUND

Flank incision (FL), dorsal lumbotomy (DL) and laparoscopic surgery have been effective approaches to donor nephrectomy. While laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become increasingly popular, there has yet to be a direct comparison of the three modalities.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of FL, DL and LDN operations between 2002 and 2010 within a single institution. Donor and recipient characteristics, as well as surgical outcomes, were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 496 donor nephrectomy operations available for analyses. Patients in the LDN group had the lowest estimated blood loss, compared to the DL and FL groups (p < 0.001), lowest rate of complications (p < 0.01), and shortest hospital stay (p < 0.0001). Donors who underwent DL used an average of 60.12 ± 5.0 mg of morphine, which was significantly less than that used by patients in the LDN (93.2 mg, p < 0.0001) and FL (111.82 mg, p < 0.001) groups. Mean serum creatinine of recipients at day 1 post-op was the highest in the FL group (p < 0.0001 FL vs. LDN, p < 0.001 FL vs. DL), but there were no significant differences between the three groups at 2 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-operation (p > 0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a lower pain experience of LDN was not indicated, the use of LDN should be favoured over DL and FL as it is associated with fewer complications, and shorter length of stay. Of note, DL appears to be associated with higher complications and is likely not a preferred option for donor nephrectomy.

A prospective study on living related kidney donors' quality of life in the first year: choosing appropriate reference data

Prospective studies on living kidney donors' quality of life (QoL) are still rare. Most existing studies compare healthy donors with the general population, including subjects with diseases. This is the first prospective study comparing living donors' QoL with reference data of both the general population and healthy individuals. We investigated QoL, anxiety, and depression in living kidney donors (n = 79) before donation and at two post-operative data points (three months and one yr). Subsequently, data from the donors were compared with the reference data. Our results show an impaired physical QoL three months post-donation. One yr after surgery, physical QoL had returned to the pre-operative level. Neither mental QoL nor anxiety or depression showed major changes across time. Pre-operative QoL was comparable to that of healthy individuals and higher than that in the general population. Donors' perception of the recipient's health showed moderate correlations with donors' mental outcome three months after donation. In conclusion, the impact on physical QoL seems to persist for at least three months after kidney donation. It could be demonstrated that in the context of living donation, healthy individuals provide more adequate reference data. Future research needs to determine the length and the nature of the post-operative QoL impairment and further explore possible influencing factors.

Does video-assisted minilaparotomy surgical living donor nephrectomy satisfy donors?

PURPOSE

Video-assisted minilaparotomy surgical (VAMS) nephrectomy is believed to provide better cosmetic outcomes than open-donor nephrectomy in healthy donors. However, the results of a few studies have influenced the opinion of donors on their physical appearance. This study investigated the satisfaction of donors after a VAMS living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Donors who underwent VAMS living donor nephrectomy between 2009 and 2011 were requested to fill out a body image questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of three subscales: body image scale (BS), confidence in surgery scale (CS), and hospital experience scale (HS). A total of 20 VAMS living nephrectomy donors completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study included 3 male and 17 female donors of overall mean age of 38.7 ± 12.4 years. Eight donors were unmarried (40.0%), 11 were married (55.0%), and 1 was divorced. The mean follow-up was 7.9 ± 4.5 months. The mean BS, CS, and HS scores were 41.6 ± 5.3, 21.85 ± 8.3, and 13.9 ± 2.2, corresponding to perfect scores of 50, 30, and 20, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that VAMS nephrectomy donors tended to be pleased with their body image, operation, and hospital experiences.

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

It is important to determine the health-related quality of life of live donors in liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 35 live liver donors and prospectively and longitudinally evaluated their health-related quality for 1.5 years post-surgery based on the Short Form-36 version 2 questionnaire. Scores of the donors stratified by the clinical data were analyzed. The study was approved by the University of Tokyo Institutional Review Board (No. 1533).

RESULTS

There was no donor mortality in the donor population studied. The percentage of major complications greater than Clavien's classification grade III was 8.6%. The physical component summary score decreased to 42.9 (p < 0.01) at 3 months, but recovered within 6 months after the operation. The mental component summary scores did not change during the observation period. The stratification study revealed that age and postoperative complications remained significant factors among the high physical component summary scores 3 months after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this survey suggest that liver harvesting does not decrease the donor's quality of life during the 1.5 years following the surgery.

Laparoscopic kidney transplantation: an initial experience

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the advantages of less pain, early ambulation and shorter hospitalization compared to open donor nephrectomy. Kidney recipient surgery is, however, traditionally performed by open surgery. Our aim was to study feasibility and safety of laparoscopic kidney transplantation (LKT). After permission from Internal Review Board, LKT was performed in four patients. All kidneys were procured from deceased donors. Left kidney was used for LKT and transplanted in left iliac fossa while right kidney was used for standard open kidney transplantation (OKT). All transplantation procedures were performed successfully. Cold ischemia time varied between 4 h and 14 h. For LKT, mean time for anastomosis was 65 (range 62-72) min, mean operative time was 3.97 (range 3.5-5) h, mean blood loss was 131.25 mL (range 45-350) mL. Mean wound length was 7 cm in LKT group and 18.4 cm in OKT group. Delayed graft function was observed in one patient in each group. One patient was lost in OKT group due to posttransplant bacterial meningitis. At 6 months, both groups have comparable value of serum creatinine. In conclusion, LKT is technically feasible and safe. Long term outcome needs to be evaluated in a larger study.

Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and mini-incision open live donor nephrectomy

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.

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: HARP-trial

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

[Current value of laparoscopy for renal transplantation]

Laparoscopic techniques have not only become increasingly more important for patients on dialysis or after kidney transplantation, they also represent the operative standard procedures as almost all patients additionally suffer from concomitant diseases and do carry a higher operative risk. Therefore, these patients will derive special benefits from minimally invasive procedures offering lower morbidity and quick recovery. In centers with expertise in minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has already replaced open live donor nephrectomy as the standard procedure.

A comparative study of quality of life issues relating to open versus laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective pragmatic study

PURPOSE

We determined whether laparoscopic nephrectomy confers improved health related quality of life in the early postoperative period compared with open nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic nephrectomy were prospectively recruited. Patients completed the Comorbidity Symptom Scale preoperatively as well as the SF-36(R) quality of life health survey and pain visual analog scale preoperatively, and 2 days and 1 month postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were recruited, of whom 71 completed all questionnaires, including 38 in the laparoscopic group and 33 in the open group. In the 2 groups mean patient age was the same (56.8 years) and there was a similar sex distribution. The laparoscopic group had improved quality of life scores with significantly higher physical component scores 1 month postoperatively vs the open group (-5.7% vs -22.2%, p = 0.009). The laparoscopic group also had significantly higher mental component scores 2 days postoperatively vs the open group compared to baseline (6.0% vs -6.6%, p = 0.009). The laparoscopic group had significantly lower pain visual analog scale scores 1 month postoperatively compared to baseline. Patients with higher Comorbidity Symptom Scale scores were more likely to undergo a laparoscopic approach (p = 0.036). Despite this they had a significantly shorter hospital stay (4 vs 6 days, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life benefits of laparoscopic over open nephrectomy were found in the early postoperative period despite more comorbidities in the laparoscopic group. This provides further evidence of the benefits of the laparoscopic approach over open surgery.

Avoiding the issue: patients' (non)communication with potential living kidney donors

OBJECTIVE

Kidney transplantation with a living donor has proved to be an effective solution for kidney patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to find a living kidney donor. The purpose of this explorative study is to investigate how kidney transplant candidates may, or may not, find a living donor in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We compared a group of 42 patients who did not find a living donor with a group of 42 patients who did, using semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

We found that, although almost all patients recognized the advantages of living kidney donation and were willing to accept the offer of a living kidney donor, many found it very difficult to ask a potential donor directly. This was true for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients may gain from professional support to deal with this situation in ways that balance their medical needs and their personal relationships.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Support programs should be developed to assist patients in developing strategies for discussing living kidney donation with potential donors.

Psychiatric aspects of organ transplantation in critical care

Intensive care unit teams are a critical part of the solid organ transplant process. The psychosocial issues involved during critical periods of transplantation are important for intensive care physicians and clinicians to understand to provide comprehensive care to transplant patients. This article provides a brief overview of transplant epidemiology, followed by a review of the psychosocial issues relevant to the phases of the transplant process. Considered are the pretransplant evaluation phase, psychiatric disorders in transplant patients, and cognitive impairments and delirium with additional issues specific to particular organs. Also covered are the side effects of immunosuppressive medications and special issues arising with living donors.

Quality of life after randomization to laparoscopic versus open living donor nephrectomy: long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this randomized study was to compare patient-reported outcome after laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy during 1 year follow-up. The evidence base has so far not allowed for a decision as to which method is superior as seen from a long-term quality of life-perspective.

METHODS

The donors were randomized to laparoscopic (n=63) or open (n=59) nephrectomy, with follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were health status (SF-36) and overall quality of life (QOLS-N). Secondary outcomes were donor perception of the surgical scar, the donation's impact on personal finances, and whether the donor would make the same decision to donate again.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic surgery regarding the SF-36 subscale bodily pain at 1 month postoperatively (P<0.05). Analysis based on intention to treat revealed no long-term differences between groups in SF-36 scores. When subtracting the reoperated/converted donors of the laparoscopic group, significant differences in favor of laparoscopy were revealed in the subscales bodily pain at 6 months (P<0.05) and social functioning at 12 months (P<0.05). No significant differences were found in QOLS-N scores between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy because of less postoperative pain. However, long-term comparison only revealed significant differences in favor of laparoscopy when adjusting for reoperations/conversions. Both groups reached baseline scores in most SF-36 subscales at 12 months and this may explain why possible minor benefits are hard to prove.