Türk böbrek donörlerinin demografik özellikleri ve alıcı ile verici akrabalık ilişkisinin postoperatif parametrelere etkisi: Tek merkez deneyimi

Abstract

Amaç: Son Dönem Böbrek Yetmezliği (SDBY) hastalarına uygulanabilecek en etkili tedavi yöntemi böbrek transplantasyonudur (KTx). Canlı vericiden yapılan böbrek nakillleri, tamamen sağlıklı bir insanın ameliyata dahil edilmesi nedeniyle özellikli bir cerrahidir. Biz de bu retrospektif çalışmada, donör nefrektomi (DNx) yapılan Türk donörlerde, verici ile akrabalık derecesinin postoperatif sonuçlara etkisini araştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya sol DNx yapılan toplam 297 hasta dahil edildi. Çalışmaya dahil edilen hastalar verici ile akrabalık derecelerine göre 6 ayrı gruba ayrılarak istatistiksel değerlendirmeye tabi tutuldu : böbrek vericisi anneler olan 69 DNx vakası grup-1’e, babalar olan 29 vaka grup-2’ye, eşlerden yapılan 70 donör nefrektomi vakası grup-3’e, kardeşlerden yapılan 68 vaka grup-4’e, çocuklardan yapılan 31 vaka grup-5’e ve 2. derece ve daha uzak akrabalardan yapılan 30 DNx vakası grup-6’ya dahil edildi. Hastalara ait yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim seviyesi, operasyon süresi (ST), postoperatif 1. gün Vizüel Analog Skala (VAS) ağrı skoru, hastanede yatış süresi ve Quality of Life (QoL) verileri retrospektif incelenerek kaydedildi. Bulgular: Donörlerin akrabalık derecesine göre dağılımına bakıldığında, donör nefrektomi operasyonunun en sık eşlere (%23.57), annelere (%23.23) ve kardeşlere (%22.9) uygulandığı görülmektedir. Donörlerin %59.26’sının kadın olduğu ve çoğunluğunun (%67.68) orta öğrenim ve üzeri bir eğitim seviyesine sahip olduğu saptanmıştır. Gruplar arasında VAS skorları, hastanede kalış süresi ve Qol-Mental Skor açısından anlamlı farklılık izlenmiştir. Sonuç: Canlı böbrek donörlerinin alıcı ile akrabalık dereceleri, postoperatif erken dönemde psikolojik sağlıkları üzerinde etkili olmakta ve muhtemelen bu yolla da VAS skorlarını ve hastanede kalış sürelerini etkilemektedir. Böbrek donasyon sürecinden en az etkilenen vericilerin anneler olduğu söylenebilir.

Keywords

• böbrek
• transplantasyon
• canlı böbrek donörü
• akrabalık ilişkisi

Demographic characteristics of Turkish kidney donors and the impact of donor-recipient relationship on postoperative outcomes: A single-center experience

Abstract

Objective: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the most effective treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Live donor kidney transplantation is unique as it involves healthy individuals who undergo a major surgery. This retrospective study seeks to investigate the effect of donor–recipient relationship on postoperative outcomes in Turkish donors undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (DNx). Material and Methods: The study was conducted with a total of 297 patients who underwent left DNx. The patients included in the study were divided into six different groups based on the degree of relationship with the recipients: Sixty-nine cases of DNx involved mothers as kidney donors classified into group-1, 29 cases involving fathers into group-2, 70 cases involving spouses into group-3, 68 cases involving siblings into group-4, 31 cases involving children into group-5, and 30 cases involving second-degree and more distant relatives into group-6. Patients’ data including age, sex, education level, duration of surgery (ST), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score at postoperative day 1, length of hospital stay (HS), and Quality of Life (QoL) were retrospectively analyzed and recorded. Results: The groups had significant differences in terms of VAS scores, HS, and QoL-MS. Posthoc analysis was performed to find out which groups had significant differences. Results showed that group-1 had significantly lower VAS scores than group-2, group-3, and group-6. HS was significantly long in group-3 and group-6. QoL-MS was significantly lower in group-2 and group-6 than the other groups. Conclusion: The degree of relationship of living kidney donors to recipients influences their psychological health in the early postoperative period and probably affects VAS scores and length of hospital stay. It can be argued that mothers are the group of donors least affected by the kidney donation process.

Keywords

• kidney
• transplantation
• live donor
• donor-recipient relationship

References

1. 1- Yang G, Shen S, Zhang J, et al. Psychological resilience is related to postoperative adverse events and quality of life in patients with glioma: a retrospective cohort study. Transl Cancer Res. 2022 May;11(5):1219-1229. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr-22-732.
2. 2- Scandurra C, Muzii B, La Rocca R, et al. Social Support Mediates the Relationship between Body Image Distress and Depressive Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 15;19(8):4825. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084825.
3. 3- Turkey Health Statistics Yearbook 2020, Turkey Ministry of Health, General Directorate of Health Services. Available from: https://sbsgm.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/43400/0/siy2020-eng-26052022pdf.pdf
4. 4- Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
5. 5- Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1171-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00109-7.
6. 6- Messersmith EE, Gross CR, Beil CA, et al. Satisfaction With Life Among Living Kidney Donors: A RELIVE Study of Long-Term Donor Outcomes. Transplantation. 2014 Dec 27;98(12):1294-300. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000360.
7. 7- Frade IC, Fonseca I, Dias L, et al. Impact assessment in living kidney donation: psychosocial aspects in the donor. Transplant Proc. 2008 Apr;40(3):677-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.02.036.
8. 8- Port FK, Wolfe RA, Mauger EA, et al. Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients. JAMA. 1993 Sep 15;270(11):1339-43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510110079036.

9. 9- Gatchalian RA, Leehey DJ. Mortality among patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 2000 Mar 23;342(12):893-4. PMID: 10733375. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200003233421213.
10. 10- Rodrigue JR, Schold JD, Morrissey P, et al. Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study. Am J Transplant. 2018 Jun;18(6):1397-1407. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14618.
11. 11- Kowal K, Zatorski M, Kwiatkowski A. Experiencing one's own body and body image in living kidney donors-A sociological and psychological study. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0249397. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249397.
12. 12- Suwelack B, Berger K, Wolters H, et al. Results of the prospective multicenter SoLKiD cohort study indicate bio-psycho-social outcome risks to kidney donors 12 months after donation. Kidney Int. 2022 Mar;101(3):597-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2021.12.007.
13. 13- Wirken L, van Middendorp H, Hooghof CW, et al. The Course and Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life in Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Transplant. 2015 Dec;15(12):3041-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13453.
14. 14- Timmerman L, Timman R, Laging M, et al. Predicting mental health after living kidney donation: The importance of psychological factors. Br J Health Psychol. 2016 Sep;21(3):533-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12184.
15. 15- Timmerman L, Laging M, Westerhof GJ, et al. Mental health among living kidney donors: a prospective comparison with matched controls from the general population. Am J Transplant. 2015 Feb;15(2):508-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13046.
16. 16- Maple H, Chilcot J, Weinman J, et al. Psychosocial wellbeing after living kidney donation - a longitudinal, prospective study. Transpl Int. 2017 Oct;30(10):987-1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12974.
17. 17- Prasad GVR. Understanding the sex disparity in living kidney donation. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Oct;24(5):999-1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13015.
18. 18- Biller-Andorno N. Gender imbalance in living organ donation. Med Health Care Philos. 2002;5(2):199-204. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016053024671.
19. 19- Rodrigue JR, Schold JD, Morrissey P, et al. Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study. Am J Transplant. 2016 Mar;16(3):869-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13591.
20. 20- Jacobs CL, Gross CR, Messersmith EE, et al. Emotional and Financial Experiences of Kidney Donors over the Past 50 Years: The RELIVE Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015 Dec 7;10(12):2221-31. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.07120714.
21. 21- Rota-Musoll L, Brigidi S, Molina-Robles E, Oriol-Vila E, Perez-Oller L, Subirana-Casacuberta M. An intersectional gender analysis in kidney transplantation: women who donate a kidney. BMC Nephrol. 2021 Feb 16;22(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02262-9.