Medical Economic Evaluation and of Quality of Life of the Kidney Living Donors. Comparison of the Taking of Kidney by cœliosurgery (Pure or " Hand-assisted "), by cœliosurgery Assisted by Robot and by the Classic Technique of Open Donor Nephrectomy.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 268
- 试验地点
- 24
- 主要终点
- Quality of life of the donor
研究概览
简要总结
The main objective of this multicentre study is to conduct the evaluation of cost-efficiency of various techniques of kidney taking with regard the quality of life of the kidney living donors.
It will allow to compare three techniques of taking (open donor nephrectomy, cœliosurgery pure or " hand-assisted " and cœliosurgery assisted by robot) and to determine their respective advantages in quality of life, then their medico-economic consequences in a cost-efficiency approach from the point of view of the society.
The evaluation will concern the donor and the receiver followed three months after the taking.
The open donor nephrectomy will be the technique of reference with which will be compared the two others.
详细描述
Context : The most efficient treatment of the terminal chronic renal insufficiency is the renal transplantation, but in spite of the realization of more than 2000 transplants a year in France, the waiting list increases every year in a important way. The decrease of the offer of transplants from deathly donors led numerous countries to develop the renal transplant from alive donors. This type of transplantation represents in 2007 only 8,1 % of transplants in France (report of ABM on 2007), but the deficit in renal transplants and the new laws of bioethics should increase this donation (it represents until 70 % of the renal transplantations in certain centres of North America or the Northern Europe).
Although the French urology is at the top of the laparoscopic technique, the classic surgical taking by lombotomie stays the reference technique, practised by 58 % of the centres, with for the patient its consequences in terms of pain, of duration of hospitalization, convalescence and possible side effects. The development of the taking by cœliosurgery, mini-invasive technique, allowed to increase the number of wishes of organ donation in the centres which developed it. It is however a difficult technical gesture, requiring an important experience. This technique has the inconvenience of a more painful scar and more subject to complications than the section known pubic of "Pfannenstiel" used for the taking by pure cœliosurgery.
The surgical robot Da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California), with a 3D mink, the joints of the instruments inside the body, the reduction of the movements, the best ergonomics, improves the precision of the cœlioscopic gesture, but has a sharply upper cost. The CHU of Nancy was the pioneer in Europe to develop this technique from 2002, with very encouraging results on a series from now on more than 80 patients.
Only retrospective studies compared the quality of life between these techniques, and in spite of the major financial impacts (10 years of dialysis represent 100 K€; the price of the robot is of 1700 K€) and the important differences of quality of life according to these various surgical approaches, no prospective comparative medico-economic study was realized up to now. In France, where the hospital bears the load of all the expenses concerning the donor, including its daily allowances during its medical certificate, the shortening of the hospitalization and of the convalescence of the donor as well as the results improved by the transplantation at the receiver of a kidney living donor would allow a fast amortization of these expensive technologies.
Main objective : To compare the cost and the efficiency of the three techniques of taking of kidney living donor.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Observational
- 观察模型
- Cohort
- 时间视角
- Prospective
入排标准
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •The receiver is registered on the ABM list;
- •The receiver is on dialysis or in preterminal renal insufficiency;
- •The donor is a member of the circle of acquaintances of the receiver.
排除标准
- •Risk of difficulties of follow-up during 3 months following the transplant (ex: patient not living in France);
- •Refusal of participation of the donor.
结局指标
主要结局
Quality of life of the donor
时间窗: D-1 (day before nephrectomy), D4 (4 days after nephrectomy) and D90 (90 days after nephrectomy)
Quality of life of the donor as measured by EUROQOL (score 0 to 1) and SF 36 self-administered questionnaires (score 0 to 100 in each of 8 dimensions , at D-1 (the day before nephrectomy), D4 (4 days after nephrectomy) and D90 (90 days after nephrectomy). biological values of the donor and the receiver
次要结局
- Sociodemographic data(D-1, the day before nephrectomy)
- Comfort, physical and mental investment of the surgeon measured by the Borg and the NASA-TLX scale(Day 0, the actual day of nephrectomy for each donor)
- Biological values of the donor and the receiver(D-1 (day before nephrectomy), D2 (2 days after nephrectomy) D4 (4 days after nephrectomy) and D90 (90 days after nephrectomy))
- Information on surgical technique employed to achieve nephrectomy and description of the graft.(Day 0, the actual day of nephrectomy for each donor)
- Treatments administered to the donor(D0 (the actual day of nephrectomy for each donor), D2 (2 days after nephrectomy), D4 (4 days after nephrectomy) and D90 (90 days after nephrectomy))
- Medical exams performed on the donor(D-1 (day before nephrectomy), D2 (2 days after nephrectomy) D4 (4 days after nephrectomy) and D90 (90 days after nephrectomy))