|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread |
|
Registered
|
docs; who goes thru more pain? the (living) organ donor, or the recipient?
all things equal, who suffers more? recovery time? i know the recipient expects a lifetime of meds..but i'm talking recovery stuff...
__________________
poof! gone |
||
|
|
|
|
Driver
|
I'd say the recipient has a rougher time. The donor has pain, certainly. But they're a relatively healthy person to begin with, and they don't have to take all the anti-rejection meds which are multiple and pretty powerful. And even from the pateints' perspectives it's a lot easier to whack out an organ, than to sew it in and expect it to live and function.
__________________
1987 Venetian Blue (looks like grey) 930 Coupe 1990 Black 964 C2 Targa |
||
|
|
|
|
Moderator
|
IIRC removing a kidney is more invasive that plumbing one in. It's very high up in the lower back and when the surgeon installs the new kidney, it is placed in an easier to access location.
__________________
Don Plumley M235i memories: 87 911, 96 993, 13 Cayenne |
||
|
|
|
|
Make Bruins Great Again
|
The dude that has to pay the bill.
__________________
-------------------------------------- Joe See Porsche run. Run, Porsche, Run: `87 911 Carrera |
||
|
|
|
|
FUSHIGI
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 10,752
|
I've not done any transplant anesthesia since training 13 years ago (and then only limited renal stuff) but it seems entirely reasonable that a well placed and managed epidural catheter/infusion would go a long way toward easing the initial days of surgical pain.
|
||
|
|
|
|
Registered
|
Donated a kidney to my sister a number of years ago (10?)... at that time it took me a lot longer to recover than it did her. I believe there are less invasive ways today. Either way well worth it.
|
||
|
|
|