title: Why potential live renal donors prefer laparoscopic nephrectomy: a survey of live donor attitudes.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To address donor attitudes and reasons for selecting either laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy (LDN, ODN), as despite the increased interest in laparoscopic procedures, organ donation continues to lag behind the demand for organs, and many new initiatives have failed to reduce the gap.
  
  
  METHODS
  This case series comprised a 10-year review of medical records and a transplant database on donor demographics, analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. A structured telephone interview was conducted for all live donors to evaluate donor awareness, reasons for selecting LDN and the psychosocial impact of DN on donors' rehabilitation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Between 1995 and 2004, 38 LDN and 38 ODN were carried out; 70% were women in both groups, with a respective mean age of 44.4 and 47.1 years. Three LDNs were converted to ODN due to technical difficulties. The mean operative duration for LDN (194.8 min) was 78 min longer than for ODN (116.8 min). As expected, the mean analgesia requirement and length of hospital stay was less for LDN than ODN, by 55.4 mg of morphine equivalent and 2.3 days. Although all renal donors were aware of the option of LDN, one patient chose ODN due to safety concerns. The primary source of donor information was derived predominantly from the donor assessment process. The main reason for choosing LDN was the earlier return to work (54%), followed by less postoperative pain (33%). In general, there was minimal psychosocial impact after renal transplantation and the overall donor experience was very positive (85%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  LDN has remained a safe, less-invasive but effective technique for allograft procurement, with minimal morbidity. Overall, there is less postoperative pain and fewer surgical complications, and an earlier return to normal functioning. The level of satisfaction with the whole renal donation process was very positive, with minimal psychosocial impact.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Royal Newcastle Centre, Newcastle NSW, Australia. ericchg@hotmail.com
authors.forename: Eric
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Chung
authors.forename: Alexander B F
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Grant
authors.forename: Adrian D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Hibberd
authors.forename: Phillip
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Sprott
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001294:Attitude to Health; D005260:Female; D006306:Health Surveys; D006801:Humans; D016030:Kidney Transplantation / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology*; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000523:psychology*; D007902:Length of Stay; D019520:Living Donors / Q000523:psychology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009392:Nephrectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology*; D020858:Tissue and Organ Harvesting / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology*