Quality Of Life In Donors Research Articles

Early outcomes of robotic vs open living donor right hepatectomy in a US Center.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy offers potential advantages but has been limited to high-volume centers, primarily in Asia and the Middle East. We report our experience establishing a robotic living donor right hepatectomy program in a U.S. center with low LDLT volume and no prior laparoscopic donor hepatectomy experience and analyze early outcomes. This retrospective cohort study analyzed 37 living donor right hepatectomies (13 robotic [including one open conversion], 24 open) performed between June 2022 and February 2024. The robotic group had longer operative times (median [range], 451 [374-568] minutes vs 368 [276-421] minutes; P < 0.001) but less blood loss (median [range], 200 [50-700] mL vs 900 [300-2500] mL; P < 0.001). One case required unplanned open conversion due to gas embolism. Two hematomas/bleeding (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIB) occurred in the robotic group, but no biliary complications. Comprehensive Complication Index, liver function tests, and hospital stays were similar between the two groups, with no 90-day graft failure/mortality. With extensive surgical experience in both open donor hepatectomy and robotic surgery, along with meticulous preparation as a team, U.S. centers with lower LDLT volume and no laparoscopic experience can safely implement robotic living donor right hepatectomy, achieving comparable short-term outcomes to the open approach. Further research on long-term outcomes and donor quality of life is necessary.

Health-related quality of life of pediatric living donor liver transplantation donors who undergone donation surgery for 10 years†

Abstract Objective: To investigate the quality of life (QOL) of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) donors. Methods: The EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) was used to measure the QOL of donors. Results: One donor reported “a little problem” of mobility (MO), and 2 donors (9.1%) reported “a little problem” of usual activities (UA). Moreover, there were 8 donors (36.4%) and 7 donors (31.8%) declaring “a little problem” of pain/discomfort (PD) and anxiety/depression (AD), respectively. And both dimensions have a donor reporting “moderate problem.” The mean visual analog scale (VAS) was 83.1 ± 12.4. Conclusions: Donors can gain a stable and preferable QOL after donation in both the short and long terms. ED-5D application in the field of liver transplant could be an effective choice in QOL studies.

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides a source for transplant in the setting of the deceased donor organ shortage. Seeing as living donors do not derive any medical benefit from the procedure, fully understanding the impact of donation on donor health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is essential. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database was performed from 2008–2020, using relevant Medical Subject Headings. Articles were evaluated for study design, cohort size and follow-up time and excluded if they contained significant methodological flaws. A total of 43 articles were included: 20 (47%) were cross-sectional and 23 (53%) were longitudinal. The mean number of donors per study was 142 (range:8–578) with follow-up ranging from 12–132 months. Forty-two unique HRQOL metrics were implemented across the 43 studies, the majority of which were questionnaires. Of the 31 studies that used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 questionnaire, 9.1% of donors reported physical QOL did not return to pre-LDLT levels for at least 2 years after donation. Mental QOL remained stable or improved after LDLT, with mean mental composite scores increasing from 50 to 52 at 3 months post-LDLT in one study. The predicted probability of poor sexual desire decreased at 1-year post-LDLT (male: 0.08, female: 0.26) relative to pre-LDLT (male: 0.44, female: 0.76; P<0.001) and three months post-LDLT (male: 0.35, female 0.69; P=0.001). Forty percent of donors found LDLT to be financially burdensome at 3 months and 19% at 2 years post-LDLT. Female gender and obesity were consistent predictors of worse HRQOL. Laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy was associated with shorter hospitalizations than open donor hepatectomy (10.3 vs. 18.3 days, P=0.02). No studies used the National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of HRQOL. Our review demonstrates that LDLT can have a long-lasting negative impact on physical QOL in 9.1% of donors and can cause both sexual dysfunction and significant financial strain. Future studies should consider using standardized and extensively validated patient reported outcomes measures, such as PROMIS, in order to directly compare outcomes across studies and gain further insight into the impact of LDLT on D-HRQOL.

Mental Health and Well-Being of Solid Organ Transplant Donors. The Forgotten Sacrifices

In light of a global organ shortage, living donor transplantation has become increasingly relevant as an alternative to deceased donor transplantation. While current research has revolved around the medical aspects of transplantation, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the quality of life (QOL) of living donors. Hence, this review aims to provide a comprehensive outline of the current landscape of living liver and kidney transplantation, with a focus on the mental health and wellbeing of donors. As highlighted in previous studies, organ donation has a significant impact on both physical and mental aspects of donor wellbeing, with marked deteriorations occurring in the short term. Furthermore, other qualitative aspects such as financial burden contribute greatly to donor distress, reflecting a need for improved donor care. To address these pertinent issues, recommendations for a successful transplant program are detailed in this review, which encompasses psychological and social aspects of donor care throughout the donation process. Further research can be done on the impact of recipient deaths on donor QOL and appropriate interventions. Overall, given the selfless sacrifices of living donors, the care of their mental wellbeing is essential. Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on the provision of adequate psychosocial support for them.

Long-term donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation in Japan.

This study examined the long-term quality of life (QOL) of living liver donors (LLDs) in Japan using both generic and LLD-specific instruments. The sample comprised 374 LLDs from five university hospitals in Japan who underwent surgery more than a year previously. QOL was evaluated using the Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and LLD-QOL scale. SF-36 results indicated that the overall long-term QOL of LLDs was significantly better than the Japanese standard. When comparing by donor factors, LLDs whose recipients were children scored higher for "satisfaction" than those whose recipients were adults on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs with complications had lower QOL for "scars" and "burden" on the LLD-QOL scale but no differences in SF-36 scores. LLDs with longer hospital stay had lower physical QOL on SF-36 and lower QOL for "scars" and "after-effects" on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs whose recipients have died showed lower mental QOL on SF-36 and lower "satisfaction" and greater "lack of understanding of donor health" on the LLD-QOL scale. Our multicenter study clarified the long-term QOL of LLDs and suggested that donors' QOL was related to the donors' and recipients' ages, donor's complications and hospital stay length, and recipient's prognosis.

A randomized, prospective study of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port versus mini laparoscopic technique for live donor nephrectomy.

To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN). A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared. A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n=50) and MLDN (n=49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89±13.01 vs. 87.31±11.38min, p<0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89±0.68 vs. 6.21±1.11cm, p<0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p=0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure. There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.

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

BackgroundLive-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. MethodsQoL 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. ResultsAfter 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). ConclusionsOverall, 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.

The healthy donor effect impacts self-reported physical and mental health-results from the Danish Blood Donor Study (DBDS).

This study aimed at quantifying the healthy donor effect by comparing self-perceived mental and physical health between blood donors and non-donors. In theory, the selection process known as the healthy donor effect should result in better self-perceived, health-related quality of life in donors than in non-donors. The Short Form-12 data from the Danish Twin Registry (DTR) was compared with the data from the Danish Blood Donor Study (DBDS). Data on age, sex and smoking status were included in the analyses. The multivariable linear regression analysis was stratified by sex and age group intervals. Outcome variables were the mental component score (MCS) and the physical component score (PCS). A total of 28 982 and 36 913 participants from the DTR and the DBDS, respectively, were included in this study. Younger donors had higher MCS than non-donors, whereas MCS was only marginally high in older donors compared with non-donors. In contrast, PCS was almost similar for both young donors and non-donors. With the increase in age, non-donors had lower PCS than donors. Two selection patterns were revealed. Among young individuals, better self-perceived mental health was associated with a blood donor. With the increase in age, better self-perceived physical health was associated with blood donation.

Factors Determining Physical and Mental Quality of Life of Living Kidney Donors in Taiwan

BackgroundLiving-donor kidney transplantation has a positive influence on recipients' life expectancy and improves quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease compared with dialysis patients. Evaluation of the physical and mental quality of life for donors can promote positive perceptions about donation and help potential donors in their decision-making process. The aim of this study was to explore the predictive factors of quality of life for living kidney donors. MethodsA cross-sectional and descriptive design was used, and the study was conducted from January to July 2013. The donors were a convenience sample of 34 participants who had undergone kidney transplant surgery >1 year earlier. ResultsThe results showed that kidney donors had a low to moderate physical and mental quality of life. Multiple regression analysis revealed that financial concerns and anxiety explained 27.8% of the total variance of quality of life in the physical component. Anxiety and paid work explained 61.4% of the total variance of quality of life in the mental component. ConclusionsAfter renal transplantation, living kidney donors experienced low to moderate quality of life. Because donors are family members (siblings, sons or daughters, spouses, or parents), monthly family income is a significant issue that influences both the decision to donate and quality of life after transplantation. Our findings suggest that pre-transplantation assessment must include social workers as part of the health care team to evaluate the impact of a donor's financial status on post-transplantation quality of life.

Postoperative Psychiatric Complications in Living Liver Donors

BackgroundTo understand the impact of psychologic variables on donor quality of life, we studied long-term data on postoperative psychiatric complications in living liver donors. This study is a focused psychological investigation of diagnoses, treatments, and long-term clinical courses of living liver donors with psychiatric complications. MethodsOf the 142 donors who underwent live-donor liver transplantation at Nagoya University Hospital between April 2004 and July 2014, we investigated those without a history of mental illness who had developed such illness after transplantation and required psychiatric treatment. ResultsA total of 6 (4.2%) donors developed the following psychiatric complications after transplantation: major depressive disorder (n = 2), panic disorder (n = 2), conversion disorder (n = 1), and substance use disorder (n = 1). Concerning psychiatric treatment, all donors received antianxiety drugs, 3 took antidepressants, and supportive psychiatric therapy was concomitantly provided to all subjects. The average treatment period was 53.3 months. Regarding subject outcomes, 3 donors achieved remission, and the other 3 continued treatment. All subjects showed improvement in Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. ConclusionIt is important to accurately diagnose postoperative psychiatric complications and provide long-term treatment in close coordination with transplant surgeons.

Quality of Life After Living Donor Hepatectomy for Liver Transplantation.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) involves healthy individuals undergoing voluntary major hepatic resection. LDLT program only started in 2012 in Pakistan and its impact on donor's quality of life (QOL) post resection is not known. The objective of this study was to determine health-related QOL in donors who underwent hepatectomy in country's first liver transplant program. A total of 60 donors who underwent hepatectomy between 2012 and 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in the study. Short form (SF-36) and Profile of mood states (POMS-65) was used to assess QOL. In addition scores were compared between patients who did and did not develop complications. Mean time duration between hepatectomy and administration of questionnaire was 15 ± 5.1 months. Median age was 28 (19-45) years. Mean BMI was 24.4 ± 3.7. A total of 7 (11.6%) Grade 3 and above complications were observed in donors. Donors exceeded a score of 90 in 6 out of 8 evaluated categories on SF-36. The highest mean score was recorded for emotional role limitation 95.5 ± 17.1 and lowest for energy 84.8 ± 17.5. The mean score for anger was 6.6 ± 7.5. Donors also did well on the POMS vigor score with a mean of 22.7 ± 5. No significant difference in scores was observed between donors with and without complications for any of the categories except tension. Donors who developed complications post-operatively had a significantly low mean tension score of 1.5 versus 3.8 for donors without complications. Acceptable post donation QOL was achieved and surgical complications did not adversely affect SF-36 and POMS scores.

The INTERVAL trial to determine whether intervals between blood donations can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundAgeing populations may demand more blood transfusions, but the blood supply could be limited by difficulties in attracting and retaining a decreasing pool of younger donors. One approach to increase blood supply is to collect blood more frequently from existing donors. If more donations could be safely collected in this manner at marginal cost, then it would be of considerable benefit to blood services. National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant in England currently allows men to donate up to every 12 weeks and women to donate up to every 16 weeks. In contrast, some other European countries allow donations as frequently as every 8 weeks for men and every 10 weeks for women. The primary aim of the INTERVAL trial is to determine whether donation intervals can be safely and acceptably decreased to optimise blood supply whilst maintaining the health of donors.Methods/DesignINTERVAL is a randomised trial of whole blood donors enrolled from all 25 static centres of NHS Blood and Transplant. Recruitment of about 50,000 male and female donors started in June 2012 and was completed in June 2014. Men have been randomly assigned to standard 12-week versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, while women have been assigned to standard 16-week versus 14-week versus 12-week inter-donation intervals. Sex-specific comparisons will be made by intention-to-treat analysis of outcomes assessed after two years of intervention. The primary outcome is the number of blood donations made. A key secondary outcome is donor quality of life, assessed using the Short Form Health Survey. Additional secondary endpoints include the number of ‘deferrals’ due to low haemoglobin (and other factors), iron status, cognitive function, physical activity, and donor attitudes. A comprehensive health economic analysis will be undertaken.DiscussionThe INTERVAL trial should yield novel information about the effect of inter-donation intervals on blood supply, acceptability, and donors’ physical and mental well-being. The study will generate scientific evidence to help formulate blood collection policies in England and elsewhere.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606, 25 January 2012.

Quality of Life in Kidney Donors and Time of Recipient Graft Loss.

Background: Kidney recipient graft loss or death has been reported to be a predictor of inferior quality of life (QOL) in their donors. Whether earlier graft loss is more closely linked with reduced QOL is not known. We hypothesized that early versus late graft loss would be associated with decreased QOL in donors. Methods: Donors were asked to rate their health as “excellent”, “very good”, “good”, “fair” or “poor” greater than one year post-donation. Of the donors who answered this survey and whose recipient's graft failed at time of analysis (n=1093), logistic regression was used to evaluate time to recipient graft loss (<3 years, 3-10 years, and >10 years) as a risk factor for inferior donor health defined as “good”, “fair”, or “poor”. The model was adjusted for BMI at donation and complications <3 months. Results: The mean time to follow-up was 17.4 ± 11.2 years and an average age of 58.2 ± 12.6 years. Donors with recipient graft loss >10 years from transplant were more likely to be related to their recipient than those whose graft failed between 3-10 years. There was no difference in race or gender (Table 1). Donors whose recipient experienced early graft loss, <3 years, were at no greater risk for reporting long-term inferior general health (OR 1.12, p=0.53). This remained true for those whose recipient's graft failed between 3-10 years (OR 1.20, p=0.25) (Table 2).Table 1: - Donor CharacteristicsTable 2: - Logistic Regression: Risk for Inferior General HealthConclusion: Early graft loss did not confer greater risk for inferior reported long-term general health in the live donor.

Donors' Quality of Life Evaluated by Short Form-36 Analysis After Living Donor Liver Transplantation in a Single-Center Experience

Background and PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the quality of life of donors using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) analysis between the left and right graft periods of living donor liver transplantation. Patients and MethodsIn the left graft period (July 1991 to July 2003), 68 donors were eligible for analysis and 76 were eligible in the right graft period (August 2003 to October 2010). Nine right lobe grafts were included in the left graft period, and 52 right lobe grafts were included in the right graft period. We investigated the risks of donation and evaluated the following: blood loss, operation time, postoperative liver function, and duration of hospitalization. We also assessed quality of life in donors, who were mailed a structured questionnaire and the SF-36. ResultsTen of the 68 donors in the left graft period and 12 of the 76 in the right graft period had postoperative complications. Most postoperative complications were treated without surgical procedures. There was no donor death in our series. Forty-eight donors in the left graft period and 36 in the right graft period responded to our investigation. Compared with published Japanese norms in SF-36, our donors scored similar or higher than the general population in both groups. Two donors in the left graft period and one in the right graft period regretted their decisions to donate. All donors returned to normalcy. ConclusionsThese results suggested that the donors' quality of life was guaranteed in terms of the SF-36 investigation regardless of the donation period in our series.

Donor Quality of Life up to Two Years After Living Donor Liver Transplantation

There is a lack of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL). This is the first prospective study examining QOL up to 2 years after donation. A consecutive sample of living donors (n=40) was compared with a sample of potential donors (n=27) with respect to QOL, anxiety, and depression. Performing mixed-effects model analysis, both groups were assessed before transplantation, with and without simultaneous donation (T0), and at three postoperative data points: 3 months (T1), 1 year (T2), and 2 years (T3). Subsequently, both groups were compared with reference data of the general population and healthy individuals. At T1, living donors' physical QOL was impaired. At T2 and T3, physical QOL was slightly lower than the preoperative level but within the range of healthy individuals in both living donors and potential donors. Neither mental QOL nor depression showed significant changes across time, while anxiety decreased in both groups. Subgroup analysis of adult-to-adult (AA) donors and adult-to-pediatric (AP) donors revealed different trajectories of mental QOL, anxiety, and depression. AP donors experienced more preoperative psychological strain, which improved after donation, whereas AA donors showed unchanged anxiety and depression, and a slight decrease in mental QOL 2 years after surgery. Two AA donors, whose recipients had died, reported persisting depressive symptoms after donation. One and two years after donation, QOL is not substantially impaired in the majority of donors. Future research needs to provide an even longer prospective follow-up and should more rigorously explore risk factors for a negative donor outcome.

A comparison of donor and control group quality of life

Informed consent of prospective donors should include information about the quality of life (QoL) of existing donors, especially those within the relevant country. This study aimed to provide information on Malaysian organ donors' QoL relative to a control group. Using a shorter version of the SF-36, QoL of 80 donors from the University of Malaya Medical Center (UMMC), Malaysia was surveyed and compared to QoL of 80 selected healthy individuals. ANOVA and General Linear Model (GLM) procedure were each applied for the QoL comparison, which was based on gender and age. Donors recorded a better QoL relative to the control group. Comparison across gender revealed that differences are more obvious for males than females. Donor/control comparison across age groups reveals that donors aged 56 and above reported significantly better QoL in most domains relative to other age groups. Information on donor QoL should be made available to the public to present a comprehensive picture of the consequences of organ donation. Nonetheless, we also argue that, despite the merits of organ donation, caution is required before concluding that donors have better QoL because the present research outcomes may reflect a self-selection bias in which respondents only included donors engaging in regular follow-ups.

Cost-effectiveness of blood donor screening for Babesia microti in endemic regions of the United States.

Babesia microti is the leading reported cause of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-transmitted infection in the United States. Donor screening assays are in development. A decision analytic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for preventing transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB) in a hypothetical cohort of transfusion recipients in Babesia-endemic areas of the United States. Strategies included: 1) no screening; 2) Uniform Donor Health History Questionnaire (UDHQ), "status quo"; 3) recipient risk targeting using donor antibody and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening; 4) universal endemic donor antibody screening; and 5) universal endemic donor antibody and PCR screening. Outcome measures were TTB cases averted, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; $/QALY). We assumed a societal willingness to pay of $1 million/QALY based on screening for other transfusion-transmitted infections. Compared to no screening, the UDHQ avoids 0.02 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $160,000/QALY whereas recipient risk-targeted strategy using antibody/PCR avoids 1.62 TTB cases per 100,000 RBC transfusions at an ICER of $713,000/QALY compared to the UDHQ. Universal endemic antibody screening avoids 3.39 cases at an ICER of $760,000/QALY compared to the recipient risk-targeted strategy. Universal endemic antibody/PCR screening avoids 3.60 cases and has an ICER of $8.8 million/QALY compared to universal endemic antibody screening. Results are sensitive to blood donor Babesia prevalence, TTB transmission probability, screening test costs, risk and severity of TTB complications, and impact of babesiosis diagnosis on donor quality of life. Antibody screening for Babesia in endemic regions is appropriate from an economic perspective based on the societal willingness to pay for preventing infectious threats to blood safety.

Recipient Graft Failure or Death Impact on Living Kidney Donor Quality of Life Based on the Living Organ Donor Network Database

There is a paucity of prospective long-term data on living kidney donor (LKD) quality of life (QoL). The Living Organ Donor Network (LODN) database follows donors longitudinally and cross-references with United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data to assess factors that affect donor QoL. The Short Form (SF)-36 was sent to donors at 6 months and yearly thereafter. Recipient outcomes were determined from the UNOS database. Of 2219 donors, 1030 returned ≥ 1 QoL survey in the first year. Seven-hundred and thirty-one donors returned at least two surveys with 51 associated with a nonfunctioning graft and 38 with recipient death. Initial QoL scores were not different between donors whose recipients were alive with graft function, and those whose recipients died (88.9 vs 89.2, P = 0.87). For donors whose recipient died, QoL in the year after recipient death averaged 6 points lower than the initial QoL (88.9 vs 82.9, P = 0.01). Thirty-one donors returned surveys an average of 4.1 years after their recipient's death. Final QoL score increased by 2.5 points, no longer significantly lower than the initial QoL (85.4 vs 88.9, P = 0.16). Thirty-eight donors returned surveys in the year after their recipient's graft failure and their QoL decreased by 5.6 points on average (86.9 vs 81.2, P = 0.07). Twenty-eight of these donors returned future surveys and final QoL was unchanged (81.2 vs 81.2, P = 0.99). Donor QoL declines after recipient death but recovers with time. Graft failure resulted in decreased QoL without recovery. The LODN database identifies factors affecting LKD QoL and provides a model for a national registry.

Recipient Graft Failure or Death Impact on Living Kidney Donor Quality of Life based upon the Living Organ Donor Network Database

Recipient Graft Failure or Death Impact on Living Kidney Donor Quality of Life based upon the Living Organ Donor Network Database

Quality of Life Following Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy

This study compares donor quality of life (QOL) with extirpative (simple or radical) patients' QOL after laparoscopic nephrectomy and analyzes factors predictive of mental QOL for donors. One hundred one donors and 48 extirpative laparoscopic nephrectomy patients filled out the SF-36v2 form at pre- and postoperative visits, and scores were transformed to norm-based. Donor characteristics were collected and analyzed using univariate analysis. Donor patients had a decline in the mental summary at all time points that became significant at 7 months (-2.9), whereas extirpative patients trended positive at 7 months (+2.6). Both groups had a significant decline in the physical summary at 1 month, which rebounded by 4 months. Female gender, positive social/psychiatric history, and major graft recipient complications were all significant predictors of a decline in mental health at 1 month. Compared with patients who undergo extirpative surgery, kidney donors have significant mental stress associated with donation that persists beyond the postoperative period. Better preoperative counseling and postoperative monitoring might lead to better outcomes, especially for those in high-risk groups.