[Living donor liver transplantation from the perspective of the donor: results of a psychosomatic investigation]

Liver Living Donation for Cancer Patients: Benefits, Risks, Justification

LDLT covers all standard indications for liver transplantation, and the results are similar or even better than for standard DDLT. Due to the donor shortage and long waiting time, LDLT has become a relevant option for patients with liver tumors, provided the expected five-year survival rate is comparable to that of patients receiving a DDLT. Nowadays, LDLT offers the possibility to extend the standard morphometric selection by considering the biological parameters. In the setting of LDLT, we are not only faced with surgical morbidity in the donor, but long-term non-medical problems like psychological complications and financial burden also have to be considered. On the other hand, the benefits to the donor are mainly social and psychological. In LDLT, the donor's altruism is the fundamental ethical principle and it is based on the principles of (1) beneficence (doing good), (2) non-maleficence (avoiding harm), (3) respect for autonomy, and (4) respect for justice (promoting fairness). On top of that, the concept of double equipoise of living organ donation evaluates the relationship between the recipient's need, the donor's risk, and the recipient's outcome. It considers each donor-recipient pair as a unit, analyzing whether the specific recipient's benefit justifies the specific donor's risk in particular oncologic indications. In this light, it is essential to seek adequate informed consent focused on risk, benefits and outcome benefits of both donor and recipient supported by an independent living donor advocate. Finally, the transplant team must protect donors from donation if harm does not justify the expected benefit to the recipient.

[Stress symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients after orthotopic liver transplantation]

OBJECTIVES

The study explored the presence of stress symptoms among orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) recipients and investigated how stress symptoms are linked to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). A new concept of adjustment disorder as a stress response syndrome according to Maercker was considered.

METHODS

We recruited 76 OLT recipients, all of whom had been treated in the Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation Surgery, University of Medicine of Graz, Austria. A self-rating scale was administered to evaluate stress symptoms (PTSS-10). The data on health-related quality of life were obtained from the SF-36 (Health Status Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Following OLT 30.3 % (n = 23) of the sample suffered from stress symptoms. In the group of patients suffering from stress symptoms there were significant impairments in health related quality of life in the SF-36 health-related domains physical functioning, role physical, pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

OLT recipients may face a major risk of OLT-related postoperative stress symptoms in the sense of adjustment disorders according to Maercker. Stress symptoms are highly associated with impairments in quality of life.

Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) decreases the shortage of liver grafts for patients in need of a liver transplant, but it involves 2 patients: a recipient and a living donor. Despite the magnitude of the procedure for LDLT donors, only a few studies have investigated the effect of LDLT on the quality of life (QOL) of donors. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE database to identify peer-reviewed articles assessing QOL in adults after LDLT donation. Nineteen studies describing 768 unique donors met our inclusion criteria for this review. The median number of donors enrolled in each study was 30 (range = 10-143), and the median follow-up period was 10.4 months (range = 3-51.3 months). Before donation, donor QOL was significantly better than that in control adult populations across all measured QOL domains. Within the first 3 months after donation, the physical domains of QOL were significantly worse than the predonation levels, but they returned to baseline levels within 6 months for the majority of patients (80%-93%). Mental domains of QOL remained unchanged throughout the donation process. Common donor concerns after LDLT included bloating, loss of muscle tone, poor body image, and fatigue. In conclusion, according to our review of the existing literature, most LDLT donors return to their baseline QOL within 6 months. However, there is a lack of long-term data on donor QOL after LDLT, and few standardized assessments include measures of common patient concerns. Additional studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive risk profile for LDLT that includes a rigorous assessment of donor QOL.