Kidney transplantation from related and unrelated living donors in a single German centre

Voiculescu, Adina; Ivens, Katrin; Hetzel, Gerd R.; Hollenbeck, Markus; Sandmann, W.; Grabitz, K.; Balzer, K.; Schneider, Frank; Grabensee, B

doi:10.1093/ndt/18.2.418

Cited by 35 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the largest experience of living-donor kidney transplantation reported from Germany [17,18]. The Freiburg living-donor transplant program started in 1976 with a living-related kidney transplantation between Arab siblings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Living-donor kidney transplantation: the Freiburg experience

Drognitz

Donauer

Kamgang

et al. 2006

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Living-donor kidney transplantation: the Freiburg experience

Drognitz

Donauer

Kamgang

et al. 2006

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well known that grafts from spousal donors give high survival rates, better than grafts from deceased donors, and similar to grafts from HLA-nonidentical LRDs [2, 3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. In our study, there was no statistically significant difference between spouses and other LUDs in long-term graft or patient survival rates, or in BPAR-free survival rates (1, 2, 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current average waiting time is about 4.5 years. Therefore, the use of kidneys from living unrelated donors (LUDs) is one of the ways of overcoming the organ shortage [1,2,3,4]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The greater use of LUDs as kidney donors is a worldwide trend in the current era of organ shortage [1,2,3,4,5], and spousal donors are an important source of LUDs. Until now, comparisons of graft outcomes between spousal donors and living related or deceased donors were reported, but the comparison between spousal donors and other LUDs has not been reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes between Spousal Transplants and Other Living Unrelated Donor Transplants: Single-Center Experience

Yoon

Song²,

Hyoung³

et al. 2009

Nephron Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: The greater use of living unrelated donors (LUDs) as kidney donors is a worldwide trend in the current era of organ shortage, and spouses are an important source of LUDs. This study was to compare the long-term outcomes of spousal donor grafts with other LUD grafts. Methods: Among 445 LUD grafts, 77 were spouses and 368 were other LUDs. The clinical characteristics and long-term survival rates for spousal transplants were compared with those for other LUD transplants, and risk factors affecting graft survival were assessed. Results: Spousal donors had a significantly higher average number of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches (4.2 vs. 3.4, p < 0.001) and were older (41 vs. 33 years, p < 0.001) than LUDs. The 10-year survival rates for spousal donor grafts were 60.6%, similar to those for LUD grafts (58.5%, p = 0.61). The 10-year biopsy-proven acute rejection-free survival rates (85.5 vs. 89.6%, p = 0.45) and patient survival rates were also similar (84.3 vs. 79.6%, p = 0.35). The degree of HLA mismatching, the spousal donor type or donor age did not affect the graft survival. Conclusion: Renal transplants from spousal donors show similar long-term outcomes to those from better HLA-matched and younger LUDs.

show abstract

“…Voiculescu et al 18 found much higher rejection rates -54.2% in LURD and 52.2% in LRD; these authors used antibody induction very selectively. Campbell et al 15 reported 44% acute rejections in living donors versus 28% in cadaveric donors with the use of more frequent antibody induction in the latter (20% versus 8%).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Living-Unrelated Donor Renal Transplantation: An Alternative to Living-Related Donor Transplantation?

Ahmad

Ahmed

Khan

et al. 2008

annals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90: 247-250 247Renal transplantation is an established treatment for endstage renal disease (ESRD). One of the major factors restricting wider use of this treatment is limited availability of the donor kidneys. Deceased donor source is insufficient to meet the increasing demand. Amongst currently available options, living donors (related and unrelated) constitute a very useful source of the best quality organs with excellent outcome. Superior outcome with living donor transplants compared with cadaveric donor transplants has been widely reported.1 Therefore, a shift towards living donor transplants is already evident world-wide. 2A similar trend has been observed in our unit over the last decade.The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of living-related (LRD) and living-unrelated (LURD) donor transplant to see if there were any differences between the two groups in graft survival, patient survival and graft function. We also analysed factors that could have influenced the patient and graft survival. Patients and MethodsData were collected from hospital records related to 322 living donor kidney transplants performed in our centre between 1993 and 2004.

show abstract

Kidney transplantation from related and unrelated living donors in a single German centre

Cited by 35 publications

References 21 publications

Living-donor kidney transplantation: the Freiburg experience

Living-donor kidney transplantation: the Freiburg experience

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes between Spousal Transplants and Other Living Unrelated Donor Transplants: Single-Center Experience

Living-Unrelated Donor Renal Transplantation: An Alternative to Living-Related Donor Transplantation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About