Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1055–1055 | Cite as

Living-related kidney transplantation in pediatric recipients

  • Thomas J. NeuhausEmail author
  • Markus J. Kemper
Letter to the Editors

Keywords

Peri Renal Transplantation Operating Technique Acute Rejection Specific Circumstance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Sirs,

We appreciate the comments of Troppmann et al. [1] concerning our previous experience [2]. Their report confirms the high degree of satisfaction of parental donors with the decision-making process and the peri- and postoperative procedures in living-related kidney transplantation (LRKT). In addition, they highlight the fact that specific circumstances in pediatric transplantation, i.e., the parent-to-child bond, is the main driving force towards LRKT, even superseding medical concerns. Although the improved operating technique, i.e., laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, did not influence the donors’ perspective and decision towards LRKT, the beneficial effects of less pain and faster rehabilitation of the donors and reduced costs are welcome by all partners in the field of pediatric renal transplantation. However, the debate is still open regarding some concerns that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy might be a risk factor for delayed graft function and acute rejection in young recipients [3], although long-term graft function was not impaired [4, 5].

References

  1. 1.
    Troppmann C, Johnston WK III, Pierce JL, McVicar JP, Perez RV (2006) Impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy on donor preoperative decision-making and postoperative quality of life and psychosocial outcomes. Pediatr Nephrol  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-006-0093-7 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neuhaus TJ, Wartmann M, Weber M, Landolt MA, Laube GF, Kemper MJ (2005) Psychosocial impact of living-related kidney transplantation on donors and partners. Pediatr Nephrol 20:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Troppmann C, McBride MA, Baker TJ, Perez RV (2005) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a risk factor for delayed function and rejection in pediatric kidney recipients? A UNOS analysis. Am J Transplant 5:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Troppmann C, Pierce JL, Wiesmann KM, et al (2002) Early and late recipient graft function and donor outcome after laparoscopic vs open adult live donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation. Arch Surg 137:908–915; discussion 915–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singer JS, Ettenger RB, Gore JL, et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open renal procurement for pediatric recipients of living donor renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 5:2514–2520CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric NephrologyUniversity Children’s HospitalZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations