Donor Quality of Life in Living Donor Liver Transplantation.
- Author:
Jin Young YOO
1
;
Nam Joon YI
;
Kyung Suk SUH
;
Choon Hyuck KWON
;
Seok Ho CHOI
;
Kuhn Uk LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. kssuh@plaza.snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Living donor liver transplantation;
Donor safety;
Quality of life;
KPH 1.0
- MeSH:
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Liver Transplantation*;
Liver*;
Living Donors*;
Male;
Occupations;
Parents;
Quality of Life*;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Reoperation;
Spouses;
Tissue Donors*
- From:The Journal of the Korean Society for Transplantation
2004;18(1):73-80
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The safety of donors and the impact on quality of life (QOL) was the most important thing in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 50 donors who were followed up more than 4 months after LDLT from December 2001 to January 2003 (response rate 92.0%). The control group was selected the same number of the general public (n=42). The questionnaire consisted of donors characteristics, medical and psychosocial outcomes, and global QOL (KHP 1.0). Follow-up investigations were also performed at out patient clinic 1, 4, and 12 months after discharge. RESULTS: The donors were more prevalent in male patient (63.0%) and most common in twenties (23.8%). The relations to the recipients were 17 offsprings (37.0%), 12 parents (26.1%), 6 spouses (13.0%), and et cetera. There was no perioperative transfusion, reoperation, and none of the donors died or has suffered life-threatening complications. Average length of hospital stay is 11.4+/-4.5 days. The mean recovery time was 1~3 months in a half of them. All donors resumed their predonation occupation or regular activity and felt no limitation. Most donors were satisfied with their donation (95.6%) and their current life (87.0%) after operation. The score of QOL examined by KHP 1.0 showed that physica role of donors were more restricted but emotional health was better than that of the general public. CONCLUSIONS: Most donors in LDLT felt it to be good, but some limitation ofl their physical role despite of their physical recoveries. Donor follow-up needs to be emphasized and followed more systemically.
