Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on July 19, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2007 22(11):3122-3127; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm480
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/11/3122    most recent
gfm480v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gai, M.
Right arrow Articles by Segoloni, G. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gai, M.
Right arrow Articles by Segoloni, G. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Potential risks of living kidney donation—a review

Massimo Gai1,3, Sara Giunti3, Giacomo Lanfranco2,3 and Giuseppe Paolo Segoloni1,3

1Renal Transplant Center and 2Laboratory of Nephrology, 3Department of Internal Medicine, University of Torino, ASO S. Giovanni Battista, Torino, Italy

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Dr M. Gai, SCU Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, University of Torino, ASO S. Giovanni Battista, Corso Bramante 88, 10126 Torino, Italy. Email: massimogai{at}katamail.com

Keywords: hyperfiltration; hypertension; kidney transplantation; living donors; proteinuria; renal function



   Introduction
Top
 Introduction
Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 
In recent decades, increasing interest has been shown in the concept of renal donation and its potential related consequences, particularly following original studies on the hyperfiltration damage due to renal ablation. Specifically, in humans, hyperfiltration damage following surgical kidney ablation has been observed only as a consequence of partial nephrectomy in subjects with single kidney and, in particular, in those in whom more than 75% of the kidney has been removed [1]. Current literature suggests that risks associated with living kidney donation may be acceptably low, with excellent outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality for the donor. Moreover, renal deterioration is similar to siblings in the same family. Indeed, a number of studies, prospectively evaluating renal function and blood pressure control after nephrectomy in living donors over a period of 10–20 years, found no evidence of development of progressive renal damage [2–5]. Some other studies, characterized by a longer follow-up period (20 years or more) [6,7] and an analysis of 19 longitudinal studies (Table 1), have confirmed the safety of living donation. However, one must be cautious in interpreting these findings, as in most of these studies a significant number of donors were lost, or did not regularly attend follow-up visits.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Comparison among 18 long-term studies on subjects who underwent nephrectomy, either for kidney donation (T) or for urological causes (U)

 
In recent years, there has been a worldwide increase in the number of living kidney donations, which in turn has been paralleled by an increase in the number of donors requiring clinical follow up for long-term complications potentially related to donation (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Risks of kidney living donation

 
In the present review the evidence for potential risks associated with living kidney donation is summarized below and is based on PubMed/Medline literature available since the 30 April 2007.



   Perioperative risks
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 
Nephrectomy represents a major surgery intervention and thus may be associated with the development of serious complications, including bleeding (0.98–6.3%), infections (wound infection 0.6–21%; pneumonia 2.5–9.8%; urinary tract infection 6.7–7.8%) and pneumothorax (0.6–8.8%) [8–11] (Table 1). The incidence rate of these complications remains controversial, as most data originate from small studies including subjects of different age and using non-uniform criteria to define complications. Perioperative mortality associated with living kidney donation has been estimated at 0.03% [7]. However, this risk may vary, based on both the selection and preparation of donors and on the surgical technique employed. Specific European and American guidelines have been developed in order to minimize this risk [12,13]. These guidelines emphasize the importance of patient selection, primarily based on the assessment of cardiovascular risk, particularly in developed countries, which are characterized by a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease. However, serious complications may also occur following an optimal selection and preparation of the candidates. Referring to the surgical technique, nephrectomy by laparoscopy appears to result in a reduction of both recovery time and post-operative pain [14,15]. However, the use of laparoscopy may be associated with an increased risk of acute complications and bleeding [8].



   Surgical risks and laparoscopy
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 
The main problem of living kidney donation is that a healthy subject undergoes major surgical intervention for organ procurement for transplantation. Therefore, a nephrectomy should be performed in optimal conditions, in order to minimize the perioperative risks for the donor [16]. Originally, laparoscopic technique in renal surgery was employed by Clayman et al. [17,18] at the beginning of the nineties. Subsequently, it was used by Ratner [19,20] in 1996, as an alternative to traditional nephrectomy surgery in living donors. In recent years, laparoscopic technique has evolved, now providing several approaches to kidney procurement: trans-peritoneal, extra-peritoneal, hand-assisted and with low abdominal pressure (‘gasless’) [21–27]. To date, more than 200 centres in the world routinely perform kidney procurement using this technique.

The use of laparoscopy may provide the advantage of decreased duration of both bed-stays in hospital and recovery time after intervention. Furthermore, this approach appears to result in reduced post-operative pain and improved aesthetic results, without increasing morbidity and mortality in donors [16,21]. On the other hand, laparoscopy may require longer operating times [25] and is potentially associated with the development of complications, including haemorrhage, need for blood transfusions and delayed bowel re-canalization [28]. The conversion to open surgery has been reported in 0–4.7% of cases and has been mainly ascribed to bleeding or technical problems [25]. However, it should be emphasized that the learning curve has a central role in laparoscopic surgery. Indeed, both operating times and rate of complications for donors and recipients are inversely related to the surgeon's expertise [29]. Furthermore, pre-interventional radiological assessment of the kidney donor by magnetic resonance or CT scan is particularly helpful, as it provides three-dimensional reconstruction of the angiographic and excretive phases, to exclude multiple accessory vessels, which would make the technique of laparoscopy quite difficult.

The use of laparoscopic technique is more beneficial for both the donor, who undergoes intervention more willingly, and the recipient, who accepts donation with minor distress, compared with the traditional technique. Furthermore, it also appears more cost-effective, as it has been estimated to result in an economic saving of ~4000 US dollars per laparoscopic living donor transplantation [30].

In recent years, the need for organs for transplantation has led to the use of less strict admission criteria for living renal donation.

In consequence, obese subjects, who may have been previously discouraged from organ donation, may now be admitted [31]. A number of studies have evaluated short-term outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality in obese living kidney donors. Jacobs et al. [28] compared safety and efficacy of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in both markedly obese (BMI >35 kg/m2) and control donors (BMI <30 kg/m2), matched for sex, race, age, renal function, side of donated kidney and experience level of the surgeon. In this study, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, although more difficult to perform in the markedly obese, was associated with an equivalent peri- and post-operative donor morbidity and recipient renal outcome. However, obese donors were more prone to develop cardiopulmonary problems [28]. Another study comparing short-term outcomes in obese (BMI >27 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <27 kg/m2) living kidney donors, showed, in obese subjects, both a higher rate of minor complications, mainly wound-related and longer operative times, which, however, did not result in longer hospitalization. Rates of non wound-related infections, bleeding, or cardiopulmonary events were not significantly different between the two groups [30]. Similar outcomes in terms of perioperative complications have also been reported in a more recent retrospective analysis of 553 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living kidney donations [32].

Overall, these data on short-term outcomes in obese living kidney donors appear encouraging. However, studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes on the remaining kidney in this group of subjects particularly at risk of developing hypertension and diabetes [31].



   Long-term morbidity
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 
Hypertension, proteinuria and decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are potential long-term complications related to kidney donation. Although most of the transplant centres suggest that risks of incurring these complications may be acceptably low, we should not underestimate them. Donors with low pre-donation GFR are at higher risk of developing renal function impairment [33]. In addition, survival of the transplanted kidney is reduced when GFR of the donor is <80 ml/min [33]. Furthermore, relatives of subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may have a genetic susceptibility to developing renal diseases or may develop clinical conditions, such as diabetes mellitus Type 1 and 2, systemic lupus erithematosus or arterial hypertension, which in turn may cause the progression of a pre-existing renal injury.

Decrease in GFR
Data from a meta-analysis of 48 studies, including 3124 subjects who underwent nephrectomy and 1703 controls, showed a decrease in GFR of 17.1 ml/min on average after unilateral nefrectomy, that tended to improve every 10 years of follow-up [34]. Furthermore, data from a study on 28 veterans of the Second World War, who underwent nephrectomy as a consequence of trauma, indicated a clearance of 75 ml/min, even at 45 years following intervention [35]. Most of the studies evaluating renal function in living donors after nephrectomy found no evidence of a reduction in GFR in a follow-up period of more than 10 years [3,5]. These data have been confirmed from other studies with a follow-up period of more than 20 years [6,7]. Renal functional reserve persists after nephrectomy, but is probably reduced. However, as outlined earlier, these findings must be interpreted cautiously, as in such studies a significant number of donors were lost or did not regularly attend follow-up visits.

Increase in proteinuria
Prevalence of both proteinuria and albuminuria has been estimated at 20% [6,7] and 30–40% [2,5,6], respectively, in long term follow-up studies, with differences related to gender, the prevalence being higher in males than in females. Whether proteinuria occurs as a consequence of hyperfiltration damage, presence of comorbid conditions, such as hypertension or incipient diabetes mellitus, or as a new renal disease, remains to be confirmed by renal biopsy. A retrospective analysis of 24 subjects who underwent nephrectomy as a consequence of urological diseases showed the development of pathological proteinuria in seven subjects, with focal glomerulosclerosis being the underlying cause, as demonstrated by renal biopsy, in four of the seven patients [36]. These data suggest that hyperfiltration damage may occur in nephrectomized subjects. Furthermore, the observation of a high prevalence of focal glomerulosclerosis in subjects affected by unilateral renal agenesia [37] has led to consider that subclinical abnormalities of the contralateral kidney may predispose a minority of subjects to develop progressive damage, even in the absence of other pathological conditions. But the age at which a kidney is lost is important, to evaluate the frequency of evolution of secondary focal glomerulosclerosis.

Proteinuria should be monitored regularly after donation (proteinuria 24 h, urinary protein/creatinine ratio or urinary albumin/creatinine ratio).

Increase in blood pressure values
A number of studies have reported a prevalence of hypertension in living kidney donors, of ~50%. This percentage is similar to that observed in the general population [5,6,38]. Consistently, in a meta-analysis, which aimed to evaluate the effects of reduction of nephron mass on renal function, nephrectomy did not appear to affect the prevalence of hypertension [34]. Another study showed significant increases in mean arterial pressure, even within the normotensive range, in normal subjects who underwent uninephrectomy and development of hypertension in 4/18 subjects [39]. Although the long-term effects of living kidney donation on development of hypertension remain controversial and require confirmation in large prospectively designed studies, there is evidence emphasising the importance of monitoring blood pressure, particularly ambulatory blood pressure [40], both before and after kidney donation [12,40,41], in order to detect early increases in blood pressure values.



   Long-term mortality and risk of CKD
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 
Post-traumatic nephrectomy in healthy subjects does not appear to be associated with increased mortality after 45 years of follow-up [35]. Data on long-term survival in kidney donors have been originally reported in Scandinavian countries since 1997 [8,42]. In a Swedish survey, 85% of the donors were alive after a follow-up period of 20 years, while the expected survival rate in the general population of the same age was 66% [42]. This increased survival may probably be explained by the selection of healthy subjects for kidney donation and the regular clinical follow-up. Furthermore, another Norwegian survey showed a similar relative risk of mortality in kidney donors and healthy controls. Thus, kidney donation does not appear to negatively impact long-term survival in appropriately selected subjects [8]. Conversely, CKD represents a possible complication. In the same Norwegian study, 7 out of 1800 donors (0.4%) developed CRF, mainly as a consequence of a primary kidney disease rather than glomerulosclerosis caused by hypertension or hyperfiltration [8]. Similarly, another recent study reported a risk of developing CKD in kidney donors of 0.2% (1/402) in Sweden and 0.5% (1/200) in Germany [43].

Data from the OPNT (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) database show that, in the period 1987–2002, 56 out of 6371 donors, after a follow-up period of 2–32 years from kidney donation, corresponding to a 15 years follow-up on average, have entered the waiting list for kidney transplantation. In these subjects, causes of renal failure have been hypertensive nephrosclerosis (43%), focal glomerulosclerosis (16%) and chronic glomerulonephritis (13%) [44].



   Quality of life and psychosocial outcome
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
Conclusion
 References
 
Long-term studies on the quality of life of renal donors were originally performed in the nineties. A Norwegian study evaluated quality of life in 494 donors, with a mean observation time from donation of 6.7 years, by administering a standardized questionnaire including various items related to quality of life and by comparing the results with those obtained in the general population. The donors exhibited higher scores, thus indicating better quality of life.

Less than 3% of subjects at the moment of the study stated that they would not like to repeat the donation experience, and 5% regretted donation in cases where the recipient had died or had lost the kidney. In the same study, the incidence of disability pensions among the donors, who were still alive in 1998, was significantly reduced, particularly in women, compared with the general population [45].

Also in American and Japanese surveys, quality of life has been reported to be better in donors compared with the general population: <5% of donor experienced dissatisfaction and in a small number, depression or anxiety after donation was present, with rare cases of suicides. The seriousness of these rare complications cannot be overlooked [31,46,47].



   Conclusion
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
References
 
Living kidney donation is a relatively safe and low-risk procedure. Clinical complications related to kidney donation may be reduced by careful pre-intervention selection and preparation of candidates and by a lifelong follow-up of donors after donation. The institution of dedicated outpatient collaboration with general practitioners may be helpful to meet this aim. Furthermore, national and international registries are needed to monitor healthiness and long-term complications in donors.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Introduction
 Perioperative risks
 Surgical risks and laparoscopy
 Long-term morbidity
 Long-term mortality and risk...
 Quality of life and...
 Conclusion
 References
 

  1. Novick AC, Gephardt G, Guz B, Steinmuller D, Tubbs RR. Long-term follow-up after partial removal of a solitary kidney. N Engl J Med (1991) 325:1058–1062.[Abstract]
  2. Hakim RM, Goldszer RC, Brenner BM. Hypertension and proteinuria: long-term sequelae of uninephrectomy in humans. Kidney Int (1984) 25:930–936.[Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Anderson RG, Bueschen AJ, Lloyd LK, Dubovsky EV, Burns JR. Short-term and long-term changes in renal function after donor nephrectomy. J Urol (1991) 145:11–13.[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Vincenti F, Amend WJ, Kaysen G, et al. Long-term renal function in kidney donors. Sustained compensatory hyperfiltration with no adverse effects. Transplantation (1983) 36:626–629.[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Eberhard OK, Kliem V, Offner G, et al. Assessment of long-term risks for living related kidney donors by 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and testing for microalbuminuria. Clin Transplant (1997) 11:415–419.[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Goldfarb DA, Matin SF, Braun WE, et al. Renal outcome 25 years after donor nephrectomy. J Urol (2001) 166:2043–2047.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Najarian JS, Chavers BM, McHugh LE, Matas AJ. 20 years or more follow-up of living kidney donors. Lancet (1992) 340:807–810.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Hartmann A, Fauchald P, Westlie L, Brekke IB, Holdaas H. The risk of living kidney donation. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18:871–873.[Free Full Text]
  9. Schostak M, Wloch H, Muller M, Schrader M, Offermann G, Miller K. Optimizing open live-donor nephrectomy - long-term donor outcome. Clin Transplant (2004) 18:301–305.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Siebels M, Theodorakis J, Schmeller N, et al. Risks and complications in 160 living kidney donors who underwent nephroureterectomy. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18:2648–2654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Kumar A, Verma BS, Srivastava A, Bhandari M, Gupta A, Sharma RK. Long-term followup of elderly donors in a live related renal transplant program. J Urol (2000) 163:1654–1658.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Kasiske BL, Ravenscraft M, Ramos EL, Gaston RS, Bia MJ, Danovitch GM. The evaluation of living renal transplant donors: clinical practice guidelines. Ad hoc Clinical Practice Guidelines Subcommittee of the Patient Care and Education Committee of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. J Am Soc Nephrol (1996) 7:2288–2313.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. EBPG (European Expert Group on Renal Transplantation); European Renal Association (ERA-EDTA). European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT). European Best Practice Guidelines for Renal Transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15(Suppl 7):1–85.[Free Full Text]
  14. Binet I, Bock AH, Vogelbach P, et al. Outcome in emotionally related living kidney donor transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1997) 12:1940–1948.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Schweitzer EJ, Wilson J, Jacobs S, et al. Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg (2000) 232:392–400.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Knoepp L, Smith M, Huey J, Mancino A, Barber H. Complication after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a case report and review. Transplantation (1999) 68:449–551.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol (1991) 146:278–282.[Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med (1991) 324:1370–1371.[Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Schulam PG, Kavoussi LR, Cheriff AD, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the initial 3 cases. J Urol (1996) 155:1857–1859.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the four year Johns Hopkins University experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1999) 14:2090–2093.[Free Full Text]
  21. Merlin TL, Scott DF, Rao MM, et al. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review. Transplantation (2000) 70:1659–1666.[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Sroka M, et al. Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy - a comparison with the open approach. Transplantation (1997) 63:229–233.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Kok NF, Alwayn IP, Lind MY, Tran KT, Weimar W, IJzermans JN. Donor nephrectomy: mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy. Transplantation (2006) 81:881–887.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Fisher PC, Montgomery JS, Johnston WK, Wolf JS. 200 consecutive hand assited laparoscopic donor nephrectomies: evolution of operative tecnique and outcomes. J Urol (2006) 175:1439–1443.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Giessing M. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19(Suppl 4):36–40.[Web of Science]
  26. Bachmann A, Dickenmann M, Gurke L, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison to the open approach. Transplantation (2004) 78:168–171.[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Sundqvist P, Feuk U, Haggman M, Persson AE, Stridsberg M, Wadstrom J. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in comparison to open and laparoscopic procedures: a prospective study on donor morbidity and kidney function. Transplantation (2004) 78:147–153.[Web of Science][Medline]
  28. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Dunkin BJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy in the markedly obese living renal donor. Urology (2000) 56:926–929.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Rawlins MC, Hefty TL, Brown SL, Biehl TR. Learning laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely: a report on 100 cases. Arch Surg (2002) 137:531–535.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Lotan Y, Duchene DA, Cadeddu JA, Koeneman KS. Cost comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters. J Urol (2003) 170:752–755.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Pesavento TE, Henry ML, Falkenhain ME, et al. Obese living kidney donors: short-term results and possible implications. Transplantation (1999) 68:1491–1496.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Heimbach JK, Taler SJ, Prieto M, et al. Obesity in living kidney donors: clinical characteristics and outcomes in the era of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Am J Transplant (2005) 5:1057–1064.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Norden G, Lennerling A, Nyberg G. Low absolute glomerular filtration rate in the living kidney donor: a risk factor for graft loss. Transplantation (2000) 70:1360–1362.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Kasiske BL, Ma JZ, Louis TA, Swan SK. Long term effects of reduced renal mass in humans. Kidney Int (1995) 48:814–819.[Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Narkun-Burgess DM, Nolan CR, Norman JE, Page WF, Miller PL, Meyer TW. Forty-five year follow-up after uninephrectomy. Kidney Int (1993) 43:1110–1115.[Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Zucchelli P, Cagnoli L, Casanova S, Donini U, Pasquali S. Focal glomerulosclerosis in patients with unilateral nephrectomy. Kidney Int (1983) 24:649–655.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Kiprov DD, Colvin RB, McCluskey RT. Focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis and proteinuria associated with unilateral renal agenesis. Lab Invest (1982) 46:275–281.[Web of Science][Medline]
  38. ESH/ESC Hypertension Guidelines Committee. Practice guidelines for primary care physicians: 2003 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. J Hypertens (2003) 21:1779–1786.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Mimran A, Mourad G, Ribstein J. Early systemic and renal response to nephrectomy in normotensive kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1993) 8:448–453.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Textor SC, Taler SJ, Larson TS, et al. Blood pressure evaluation among older living kidney donors. J Am Soc Nephrol (2003) 14:2159–2167.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Bia MJ, Ramos EL, Danovitch GM, et al. Evaluation of living renal donors. The current practice of US transplant centers. Transplantation (1995) 60:322–327.[Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Fehrman-Ekholm I, Elinder CG, Stenbeck M, Tyden G, Groth CG. Kidney donors live longer. Transplantation (1997) 64:976–978.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  43. Sommerer C, Morath C, Andrassy J, Zeier M. The long-term consequences of living-related or unrelated kidney donation. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19(Suppl 4):45–47.[Web of Science]
  44. Ellison MD, McBride MA, Taranto SE, Delmonico FL, Kauffman HM. Living kidney donors in need of kidney transplants: a report from the organ procurement and transplantation network. Transplantation (2002) 74:1349–1351.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Westlie L, Fauchald P, Talseth T, Jakobsen A, Flatmark A. Quality of life in Norwegian kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1993) 8:1146–1150.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Johnson EM, Anderson JK, Jacobs C, et al. Long-term follow-up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. Transplantation (1999) 67:717–721.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  47. Isotani S, Fujisawa M, Ichikawa Y, et al. Quality of life of living kidney donors: the short-form 36-item health questionnaire survey. Urology (2002) 60:588–592.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Received for publication: 12.10.06
Accepted in revised form: 25. 6.07


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
F G Miller and S Joffe
Limits to research risks
J. Med. Ethics, July 1, 2009; 35(7): 445 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/11/3122    most recent
gfm480v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gai, M.
Right arrow Articles by Segoloni, G. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gai, M.
Right arrow Articles by Segoloni, G. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?