Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. METHODS: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). RESULTS: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

The effective dose due to scattered radiation at patients during primary osteosynthesis; a multicenter prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: During osteosynthesis of a fracture patients are exposed to the primary radiation of an X-ray image and scattered (secondary) radiation. The primary objective was to measure the amount of scattered radiation at the thyroid, breast tissue, and gonads of patients undergoing primary osteosynthesis of acute fractures. The secondary objective was to calculate the effective dose caused by scattered radiation. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational case series patients undergoing a primary osteosynthesis of an acute fracture of hand/wrist, shoulder, ankle, knee, or hip were included. Three dosimeters were attached to the patient at the level of the thyroid, breast and gonads. Scattered radiation doses were corrected for the average background radiation per hospital per day. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were included between March 6, 2017 and June 18, 2018; 49 (24%) had a hand/wrist fracture, 37 (18%) a shoulder fracture, 47 (23%) an ankle fracture, 35 (17%) a knee fracture, and 37 (18%) a hip fracture. In 32-39% of all patients undergoing primary osteosynthesis effective scattered doses was detected. The highest measured median effective dose was 60.43 µSv (P25-P75 33.84-100.76) at the gonads during hip osteosynthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that scattered radiation is detectable in a third of patients undergoing an osteosynthesis. However, both effective doses due to direct radiation and scattered radiation are low. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first study that presents that no radiation protection for patients undergoing an osteosynthesis is necessary.

Attitudes among transplant professionals regarding shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation.

BACKGROUND: The transplant community increasingly accepts extended criteria live kidney donors, however, great (geographical) differences are present in policies regarding the acceptance of these donors, and guidelines do not offer clarity. The aim of this survey was to reveal these differences and to get an insight in both centre policies as well as personal beliefs of transplant professionals. METHODS: An online survey was sent to 1128 ESOT-members. Questions were included about several extended donor criteria; overweight/obesity, older age, vascular multiplicity, minors as donors and comorbidities; hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, kidney stones, malignancies and renal cysts. Comparisons were made between transplant centres of three regions in Europe and between Europe and other countries worldwide. RESULTS: 331 questionnaires were completed by professionals from 55 countries. Significant differences exist between regions in Europe in acceptance of donors with several extended criteria. Median refusal rate for potential live donors is 15%. Furthermore, differences are seen regarding pre-operative work-up, both in specialists who perform screening as in preoperative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Remarkably, 23.4% of transplant professionals sometimes deviate from their centre policy, resulting in more or less comparable personal beliefs regarding extended criteria. Variety is seen, proving the need for a standardized approach in selection, preferably evidence based.

Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought. RESULTS: Outcome will be published in a scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5374; Pre-results.