Attitudes among surgeons towards live-donor nephrectomy: A european update
Transplantation , Volume 94 - Issue 3 p. 263- 268
Background: The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the development of novel surgical techniques for live-donor nephrectomy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current status of the surgical approach in Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 119 transplant centers in 12 European countries. Questions included the number of donors, the technique used, and the acceptance of donors with comorbidities. Results: Ninety-six centers (81%) replied. The number of living donors per center ranged from 0 to 124. Thirty-one institutions (32%) harvested kidneys using open techniques only. Six centers (6%) applied both endoscopic and open techniques; 59 centers (61%) performed endoscopic donor nephrectomy only. Lack of evidence that endoscopic techniques provide superior results was the main reason for still performing open donor nephrectomy. In seven centers, a lumbotomy is still performed. Seventy-two centers (75%) accept donors with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m, the median upper limit in these centers was 35 kg/m (range, 31-40). Donors with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification higher than 1 were accepted in 55% of the centers. Conclusions: Live kidney donation in general and minimally invasive donor nephrectomy in particular are more commonly applied in Northern and Western Europe. However, a classic lumbotomy is still performed in a minority of centers. Because minimally invasive techniques have been proven superior, more attention should be given to educational programs in this field to let many kidney donors benefit.
|Kidney transplantation, Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, Living donors, Open donor nephrectomy, Surgical technique, Survey|
|Organisation||Department of Surgery|
Klop, K.W.J, Dols, L.F.C, Kok, N.F.M, Weimar, W, & IJzermans, J.N.M. (2012). Attitudes among surgeons towards live-donor nephrectomy: A european update. Transplantation (Vol. 94, pp. 263–268). doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3182577501