The British journal of surgery · 1999
Live kidney donor assessment in the UK and Ireland.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lumsdaine J A, Wigmore S J, Forsythe J L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The criteria and methods for assessing live kidney donors are not clear. This study was undertaken to establish whether there is a consensus regarding the organization and methods of assessment of living kidney donors by renal transplant centres in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
METHODS: All transplant centres in the UK and Ireland involved in living donor kidney transplantation were contacted by telephone survey followed by postal questionnaire.
RESULTS: Considerable variation was observed in the organization of living kidney donor evaluation and the methods of assessment used. The upper and lower age limits considered acceptable for kidney donation were variable, with six of 29 centres setting no lower age limit and 11 setting no upper age limit. Four centres do not currently offer living donor kidney transplantation. Of the 29 centres involved with living donor transplantation ten had no protocol for donor assessment. A dedicated transplant coordinator/nurse practitioner was employed by 20 centres and ten routinely used an independent medical assessor to evaluate living related donors. The frequency and duration of donor follow-up after kidney donation also varied widely, with 18 centres providing life-time, seven limited and three no follow-up after initial postoperative assessment.
CONCLUSION: The wide variation in organizational structure and method of assessment of living kidney donors in the UK and Ireland supports the need for establishment of guidelines for this practice.
METHODS: All transplant centres in the UK and Ireland involved in living donor kidney transplantation were contacted by telephone survey followed by postal questionnaire.
RESULTS: Considerable variation was observed in the organization of living kidney donor evaluation and the methods of assessment used. The upper and lower age limits considered acceptable for kidney donation were variable, with six of 29 centres setting no lower age limit and 11 setting no upper age limit. Four centres do not currently offer living donor kidney transplantation. Of the 29 centres involved with living donor transplantation ten had no protocol for donor assessment. A dedicated transplant coordinator/nurse practitioner was employed by 20 centres and ten routinely used an independent medical assessor to evaluate living related donors. The frequency and duration of donor follow-up after kidney donation also varied widely, with 18 centres providing life-time, seven limited and three no follow-up after initial postoperative assessment.
CONCLUSION: The wide variation in organizational structure and method of assessment of living kidney donors in the UK and Ireland supports the need for establishment of guidelines for this practice.