Organs from living donors provide an important resource for kidney transplantation that help to reduce the shortage in donor organ and therefore reduce the waiting time of end stage renal failure patients. Currently, living donor kidney transplantation accounts for 20% of national kidney transplants in China. Donors’ safety, life quality and recipients’ long term prognosis are important concerns for living donor transplantation. However, study about donors’long term prognosis and the relevance between donors’renal capacity and recipients’ graft function are relatively few in China.
Objective: 72 pairs of living donor renal transplants between 2007 and 2016 in our Hospital were collected and analyzed. The study aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term prognosis of living donors. In addition, the relevance between donors’renal capacity( eGFR and volume) and recipients’graft function would be investigated. Method: Data of 72 donors with living donor renal transplantation between 2007 and 2016 in Tianjin First Central Hospital were collected in Dec, 2016. The donors were voluntarily involved and they signed the informed consent. 72 cases were divided into five groups according to the year of operation: first group(G1) included donors operated between 2007 and 2008(n=15); second group(G2) was from 2009 to 2010 (n=9); third group(G3) was from 2011 to 2012(n=7); fourth group was from 2013 to 2014 (n=13); the last group was from 2015 to 2016(n=28). Donors’ eGFR was calculated with Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation, and pre-operation and post operation renal volume was measured with extended CT scan. The demographic characteristics of included donors, which were age, weight, blood pressure, renal function and renal volume were compared between the five groups. The recipients’data was also compared. The type of kinship of each pair was analyzed. Additionally, relevance between living donors ‘renal reserve capacity and recipients’graft function was estimated. Results: First, donors’ age increased over time, with mean age of G5 3.5 yrs above that of G1 . Second, donor’s weight decreased initially and then increased from 2007 to 2016 (weight ratio ( pre operation compared with post operation) was 1.0,0.9,1.2 for G1, G2,G5 prespectively, p=0.02). Third, the number of male recipients increased, and occupation of patients as donors enlarged with the time. Fourth, donor eGFR declined in different degree among five groups, and the change was statistically significant. In addition, eGFR was improved with time after donation (G1 vs. G5: 82.8±5.6 vs. 65.165.1±2.3，p=0.009). Fifth, the donors’ kidney appeared to have compensatory hyperplasia. In G5, the volume after donation increased statistically significant compared with pre-operation (pre-operation: 180.3±7.6; post-operation: 210.5±9.6，p=0.02). Last, there was correlation between living donors ‘renal reserve capacity and recipients’graft function (p<0.05). In conclusion, it is suggested that metabolic diseases among donors be paid close attention to, due to age increasing and weight gaining. Kidney compensatory hyperplasia of donors is in accordance with the renal function. Recipients’ graft function and donors ‘renal reserve capacity is relevant.