Comparative assessment of the quality of life in patients who underwent kidney transplantation from a family and a cadaver donor

Authors

  • M. S. Zagriichuk Volyn Regional Clinical Hospital
  • I. P. Marchuk Volyn Regional Clinical Hospital Volyn National University named after Lesya Ukrainka
  • O. O. Pidoprygora National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O. O. Shalimov
  • T. S. Migalega Volyn Regional Clinical Hospital

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11603/2414-4533.2022.3.13391

Keywords:

quality of life, SF-36, kidney transplantation

Abstract

The aim of the work: to determine the indicators of the quality of life in recipients after kidney transplantation from a family and cada­veric donor, to assess the dynamics after 1, 2 and 3 months. Compare the obtained results.

Materials and Methods. In order to assess the quality of life, the 36-Item Short-Form Health Status (SF-36) questionnaire, convenient and understandable for the patient, was used. The obtained data were entered into Microsoft™ Excel® 2016, sorted, processed. The statistical base consisted of n=41 patients: n=19 in the family transplantation group, where 8 men, 11 women (group 1), and n=22 in the cadaveric transplantation group, where 11 men, 11 women (group 2). Groups were compared for homogeneity on the risk of mortality and postope­rative complications (P-POSSUM). The average indicator of the complexity of the operation in group 1 was 13.4 units, while in group 2 it was 14.8 units on the P-POSSUM scale. The average age of recipients in group 1 was 39.11, in group 2 – 39.41.

Results and discussion. The analysis of the results showed that the quality of life in patients after cadaveric transplantation (in group 2) was objectively lower than the corresponding indicator in group 1 before surgery, in the first 2 months, and leveled off and did not differ statistically after 3 months.

Current experience in performing kidney transplants, high-quality and appropriate maintenance of the waiting list, as well as modern pharmacotherapy and rehabilitation make it possible to guarantee patients after cadaveric kidney transplantation a quality of life comparable to family kidney transplantation 3 months after transplantation.

References

Bellini, M.I., Nozdrin, M., Pengel, L., Knight, S., Papalois, V. (2022). How good is a living donor? Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of donor demographics on post kidney transplant outcomes. J. Nephrol., 35 (3), 807-820. DOI: 10.1007/s40620-021-01231-7.

El-Agroudy, A.E., Taher, A.A., Alshehabi, K.M., Alalwan, A.A., Arekat, M.R. (2021). Quality of life among renal transplant recipients in Bahrain: A single-center experience. Saudi J. Kidney Dis. Transpl., 32 (3), 774-785. DOI: 10.4103/1319-2442.336773.

Haraldstad, K., Wahl, A., Andenæs, R., Andersen, J.R., Andersen, M.H., Beisland, E., Borge, C.R., Engebretsen, E., Eisemann, M., Halvorsrud, L., Hanssen, T.A., & Haugstvedt, A. (2019). A systematic review of quality of life research in medi­cine and health sciences. Qual. Life Res., 28 (10), 2641-2650. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9.

Domingo Hernández, Juana Alonso-Titos, Ana Maria Armas- Padrón, Veronica Lopez, Mercedes Cabello, Eugenia Sola, Laura Fuentes, et al. (2020). Waiting list and kidney transplant vascular risk: An ongoing unmet concern. Kidney Blood Press Res., 45 (1), 1-27. DOI: 10.1159/000504546.

Kasiske, B.L., Zeier, M.G., Chapman, J.R., Craig, J.C., Ekberg, H., Garvey, C.A., Green, M.D. … & Balk, E.M. (2010). Kidney disease: Improving global outcomes. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients: A summary. Kidney Int., 77 (4), 299-311. DOI: 10.1038/ki.2009.377.

Lin,Y., Yu, Y., Zeng, J., Zhao, X., & Wan, C. (2020). Comparing the reliability and validity of the SF-36 and SF-12 in measuring quality of life among adolescents in China: a large sample cross-sectional study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes, 18 (1), 360. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01605-8.

Milaniak, I., Wilczek Rużyczka, E., Dębska, G., Król, B., Wierzbicki, K., Tomaszek, L., & Przybyłowski, Р. (2020). Level of life quality in heart and kidney transplant recipients: A Multicenter Study. Transplant Proc., 52 (7), 2081-2086. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.03.038.

Ware Jr, J.E., Gandek, B. (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 51 (11), 903-912. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x.

ЗАКОН УКРАЇНИ Про застосування трансплантації анатомічних матеріалів людині. Відомості Верховної Ради (ВВР). 2018.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-05

How to Cite

Zagriichuk, M. S., Marchuk, I. P., Pidoprygora, O. O., & Migalega, T. S. (2022). Comparative assessment of the quality of life in patients who underwent kidney transplantation from a family and a cadaver donor. Hospital Surgery. Journal Named by L.Ya. Kovalchuk, (3), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.11603/2414-4533.2022.3.13391

Issue

No. 3 (2022)

Section

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Hospital Surgery. Journal named by L.Ya. Kovalchuk

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish their work in Hospital Surgery. Journal by L. Ya. Kovalchuk agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  
  2. Лицензия Creative Commons
  3. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)