No abstract

OBJECTIVES To address donor attitudes and reasons for selecting either laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy (LDN, ODN), as despite the increased interest in laparoscopic procedures, organ donation continues to lag behind the demand for organs, and many new initiatives have failed to reduce the gap. PATIENTS AND METHODS This case series comprised a 10‐year review of medical records and a transplant database on donor demographics, analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. A structured telephone interview was conducted for all live donors to evaluate donor awareness, reasons for selecting LDN and the psychosocial impact of DN on donors’ rehabilitation. RESULTS Between 1995 and 2004, 38 LDN and 38 ODN were carried out; 70% were women in both groups, with a respective mean age of 44.4 and 47.1 years. Three LDNs were converted to ODN due to technical difficulties. The mean operative duration for LDN (194.8 min) was 78 min longer than for ODN (116.8 min). As expected, the mean analgesia requirement and length of hospital stay was less for LDN than ODN, by 55.4 mg of morphine equivalent and 2.3 days. Although all renal donors were aware of the option of LDN, one patient chose ODN due to safety concerns. The primary source of donor information was derived predominantly from the donor assessment process. The main reason for choosing LDN was the earlier return to work (54%), followed by less postoperative pain (33%). In general, there was minimal psychosocial impact after renal transplantation and the overall donor experience was very positive (85%). CONCLUSION LDN has remained a safe, less‐invasive but effective technique for allograft procurement, with minimal morbidity. Overall, there is less postoperative pain and fewer surgical complications, and an earlier return to normal functioning. The level of satisfaction with the whole renal donation process was very positive, with minimal psychosocial impact.

Summary Up to 45% of esophageal atresia (EA) patients undergo fundoplication during childhood. Their esophageal dysmotility may predispose to worse fundoplication outcomes compared with patients without EA. We therefore compared fundoplication outcomes and symptoms pre- and post-fundoplication in EA patients with matched patients without EA. A retrospective review of patients with- and without EA who underwent a fundoplication was performed between 2006 and 2017. Therapeutic success was defined as complete sustained resolution of symptoms that were the reason to perform fundoplication. Fundoplication indications of 39 EA patients (49% male; median age 1.1 [0.1–17.0] yrs) and 39 non-EA patients (46% male; median age 1.3 [0.3–17.0] yrs) included respiratory symptoms, brief resolved unexplained events, typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, recurrent strictures and respiratory problems. Post-fundoplication, therapeutic success was achieved in 5 (13%) EA patients versus 29 (74%) non-EA patients (P<0.001). Despite therapeutic success, all 5 (13%) EA patients developed postoperative sustained symptoms/complications versus 12 (31%) non-EA patients. Eleven (28%) EA patients versus 3 (8%) non-EA patients did not achieve any therapeutic success (P=0.036). Remaining patients achieved partial therapeutic success. EA patients suffered significantly more often from postoperative sustained dysphagia (41% vs. 13%; P=0.039), gagging (33% vs. 23%; P<0.001) and bloating (40% vs. 17%; P=0.022). Fundoplication outcomes in EA patients are poor and EA patients are more susceptible to post-fundoplication sustained symptoms and complications compared with patients without EA. The decision to perform fundoplication in EA patients with proven gastroesophageal reflux disease needs to be made with caution after thorough multidisciplinary evaluation.

No abstract

No abstract