Abstract
Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) offers superior outcomes for most patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), yet its uptake across Europe remains highly variable. This proceedings article summarizes key themes from a pan-European symposium held in November 2025 in Prague, organized by the European Kidney Transplant Association (EKITA) in collaboration with the DESCaRTES Working Group. Discussions highlighted substantial heterogeneity in LDKT activity across Europe, driven by differences in healthcare capacity, legal frameworks, donor evaluation practices, and access to kidney exchange programmes. Marked inequities persist between regions, particularly in the Balkans and Western Balkans, for women those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, ethnic minority populations, paediatric and elderly patients and individuals with obesity. The symposium identified wide variation in donor selection criteria, risk assessment, informed consent practices, and long-term donor follow-up, despite existing international guidelines. Emerging strategies to address these challenges include harmonisation of donor evaluation and consent, expansion of paired and cross-border kidney exchange programmes, increased use of unspecified kidney donation, and adoption of innovative surgical and immunological approaches to safely broaden donor eligibility. Advances in outcome measurement, including validated surrogate endpoints, machine learning methods, and integrated, harmonised transplant registries, were discussed as critical tools to improve quality, transparency, and research efficiency. Collectively, the proceedings underscore the need for coordinated clinical, policy, and data-driven solutions to reduce inequities and unlock the full potential of LDKT across Europe, with implications for international transplant practice.
Introduction
Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) provides the best outcomes for most patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), particularly when performed pre-emptively before dialysis initiation [, ], yet its uptake across Europe remains highly variable. Differences in clinical practice, legal frameworks, donor evaluation, and access to kidney exchange continue to drive inequities in LDKT across Europe. Reflecting the need for coordinated European action, EKITA has identified promotion of LDKT as a strategic priority for 2026ā2027. This proceedings article summarizes key themes from a pan-European symposium held in Prague in November 2025, organized by EKITA and the DESCaRTES Working Group, highlighting current practice, unmet needs, and future strategies to improve equitable access to LDKT in Europe.
Variation in living donation across Europe
Across the continent, LDKT activity remains unevenly distributed. The overall living donor transplant rate is approximately 13 per million population (pmp), compared with ā¼27 pmp for deceased donor transplantation, with extremes ranging from negligible to non-existent activity in some countries such as Moldova, Slovenia and Serbia with ā¼0 pmp rates, to ā¼39 pmp in Turkey. Countries such as the Netherlands and parts of Scandinavia demonstrate high LDKT activity, supported by mature national and kidney exchange programs, whereas many Western, Central, and Southern European countries, including Poland, France, Italy, and much of Central Europe, exhibit comparatively lower rates. In Central Europe, 2024 LDKT rates ranged from 0.95 pmp in Slovenia and 2.18 pmp in Poland to 7.59 pmp in Germany, despite well-developed transplant infrastructures (Figure 1) [].
FIGURE 1
Disparities are even more pronounced in the Balkans and Western Balkans, where living donation often compensates for underdeveloped deceased donor programs. Living donation rates range from 0.3 to 0.5 pmp in Bulgaria to 2.8ā2.9 pmp in Romania, with Greece representing a regional outlier at approximately 10 pmp. In the Western Balkans, Albania (ā¼9.3 pmp), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ā¼9.7 pmp), and North Macedonia (ā¼9 pmp) rely predominantly on living donation, whereas Serbia demonstrates critically low activity and Kosovo lacks a domestic transplant program. Overall, fewer than 25% of patients with ESKD in the Western Balkans receive a kidney transplant, compared with ā¼40% across the European Union, highlighting persistent inequities driven by healthcare capacity, cultural factors, and limited regional integration.
Analysis of European practices in living kidney donor evaluation
Thorough assessment of living kidney donors is essential to ensure donor safety. Despite the availability of multiple national and international guidelines for living donor evaluation [ā], substantial variation in clinical practice persists across Europe. In the first Europe-wide survey conducted by the DESCaRTES and EKITA working groups (124 centers in 16 countries, representing ā¼45% of European centers and ā¼3,700 living kidney donations annually), marked heterogeneity was observed in donor evaluation and follow-up practices (Table 1) []. Low-consensus areas included kidney function assessment, nephrolithiasis, albuminuria, microscopic haematuria, and BMI thresholds, highlighting the need for harmonised donor assessment criteria across Europe (Table 1). Practice variation reflects not only differences between countries but also centre-level policies and organisation. For example, a recent UK survey demonstrated marked variation in donor acceptance criteria, evaluation timelines, and follow-up practices despite a shared healthcare system and excellent outcomes [].
TABLE 1
| Domain | Key finding | Interpretation/Consensus |
|---|---|---|
| Survey scope | 125 respondents from 124 transplant centers in 16 European countries, representing ā¼45% of European transplant centers and ā¼3,700 living donor transplants annually | ā |
| Kidney function assessment | 56% use eGFR (CKD-EPI); 34% use 24-h creatinine clearance; 41% use combined cystatin c and creatinine; 70% use measured GFR (mGFR) | Low consensus/Substantial heterogeneity |
| GFR thresholds | 64% use age-dependent GFR thresholds; 26% of fixed-threshold centers use 80Ā mL/min/1.73Ā m2 | Most centers individualize thresholds according to donor age |
| Age criteria | 63% have no upper age limit; 53% use 18 years as the lower age limit | Age alone is not considered an absolute contraindication |
| BMI cut-offs | BMI ā„30Ā kg/m2 used by 39%; BMI ā„35Ā kg/m2 by 42% | Obesity management varies considerably across centers |
| Weight-loss support | 74% offer weight-loss interventions, mainly dietary support (67%), endocrinological evaluation/medications 23% and bariatric surgery 11% | Most centers attempt optimization before excluding overweight donors |
| Diabetes screening | Exclusion thresholds include HbA1c ā„ 53Ā mmol/mol (46%), fasting glucose ā„7Ā mmol/L (57%), or OGTT glucose ā„11.1Ā mmol/L (59%) | Strong consensus on excluding overt diabetes |
| Hypertension | 91% exclude uncontrolled hypertension/end-organ damage; 78% exclude candidates using ā„3 antihypertensives | High consensus regarding hypertension-related exclusions |
| Albuminuria/ Proteinuria | Only 38% assess both spot and 24-h urine | Marked variability in testing strategies and thresholds |
| Microscopic hematuria | 57% accept donors if both urological evaluation and kidney biopsy are normal | Donation often permitted after negative work-up |
| ApoL1 testing | 27% routinely test donors of African ancestry | ApoL1 testing is not standard practice in most European centers |
| Nephrolithiasis | Most centers accept low-risk stone history; only 2% reject any history of stones | Stone history is acceptable when recurrence risk is low |
| Risk calculators | 54% do not use online ESKD risk calculators | Clinical judgment remains the primary assessment tool |
| Informed consent | 95% obtain written consent for donation; 65% for data registration | Donation consent is nearly universal |
| Follow-up duration | 83% offer lifelong follow-up, usually annually | Long-term donor surveillance is strongly supported |
| Follow-up components | Includes blood pressure (98%), eGFR (94%), spot urine (75%), medication review (70%) | Focuses on kidney function and cardiovascular risk |
Summary table of key findings Living Kidney Donation Practices in Europe: A Survey of DESCaRTES and EKITA Transplantation Working Groups (ref).
Equally important is protecting potential donors from prolonged evaluation processes and avoiding unnecessary investigations, especially those which are invasive. Unnecessarily prolonged processes can lead to frustration, psychological burden and increase withdrawal rates from donation [ā]. From the recipient perspective, delays reduce the opportunity to perform transplantation pre-emptively, thereby exposing recipients to dialysis-related morbidity and potentially diminishing the clinical benefits associated with timely LKDT [, ]. Incidental findings during the evaluation process, particularly on imaging, are common (reported prevalence range from 6%ā75%) [ā] but most are benign and clinically insignificant, with transmitted donor-derived malignancies being exceedingly rare []. Common incidental findings include renal cysts, angiomyolipomas, nephrolithiasis, and microscopic haematuria, for which guideline recommendations are often ungraded due to limited evidence.
Finally, the role of genetic testing in CKD and consequently in living donor evaluation is rapidly evolving. Genetic testing identifies a monogenic cause in ā¼10% of adults with CKD and up to 40%ā60% in selected groups, often changing diagnosis and management [, ]. Targeted genetic testing is most informative in biologically related donors and those with early-onset or unexplained CKD, extrarenal features, or high-risk ancestry (e.g., APOL1). When combined with counseling, it improves risk stratification and donor safety, although challenges remain due to limited guidance, variable expertise, uncertain variant interpretation, access to counseling, and cost.
Over the last decade, living donor selection in several European countries has gradually shifted from fixed exclusion criteria toward more individualised, risk-based assessment. This is now reflected in contemporary guidelines [] but the impact of these changes is difficult to assess at a European level because donor selection policies, data collection, and follow-up practices remain heterogeneous. Nonetheless, the total number of living donor kidney transplants performed in Europe has increased, exceeding 7,000 procedures across Council of Europe countries in 2024, compared with the mid-2010s when annual numbers were generally reported at around 5000ā6000 LDKT [].
Donor safety, ethics and outcomes
Ethical dilemmas between potential donors and transplant teams remain common. KDIGO guidelines recommend frameworks to protect donors while recognising that being declined, particularly when labelled āmarginal,ā may undermine autonomy and cause distress [, ā]. In keeping with contemporary terminology, such candidates are better described as potential donors with expanded criteria. However, respect for donor autonomy does not override the responsibility of transplant teams to prioritise donor safety and clinical judgement.
Autonomous informed consent requires ensuring donor understanding and freedom from coercion. Transplant programmes should clearly define and communicate how decisions are made and offer second opinions to minimise paternalism [ā]. A systematic review of informed consent in living kidney donation demonstrated substantial variation across transplant centres and highlighted the need for a standardized yet flexible approach to ensure equitable donor education and decision-making []. To address this gap, the DESCaRTES Working Group proposed a 3-Step Model for informed consent in living kidney donation [], adapted from the Three-Talk Model of shared decision-making []. This framework defines consent as a longitudinal process-team, option, and decision talk-standardizing timing and risk communication while allowing individualization based on donor values and understanding (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2
Living donor evaluation also poses challenges in the interpretation and communication of long-term risk, particularly for the risk of ESKD []. Landmark cohort studies by MjĆøen et al. and Muzaale et al. demonstrated that, while living kidney donors have a higher relative risk of ESKD compared with healthy controls, the absolute risk remains low (ā¼0.5% and 0.31% at ā¼15 years) [, ]. These findings were reinforced by a recent meta-analysis estimating an absolute risk of ESKD of approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 donor-years. Therefore the attributable risk, which is the excess risk that may be associated with donation itself, remains very small in absolute terms []. Interpreting these data requires careful consideration of study design, comparator selection, duration of follow-up, and the extent to which study populations reflect the characteristics of contemporary donor candidates in individual transplant programmes. Healthcare professionals should therefore understand the distinction between relative, absolute, and attributable risk and communicate these concepts clearly to potential donors and recipients, so that risk is interpreted in an accurate and clinically meaningful context.
The high cardiovascular mortality associated with dialysis is well recognised and closely related to the duration of ESKD, with kidney transplantation representing the most effective strategy to reduce this risk []. Concerns remain regarding the long-term cardiovascular effects of living kidney donation; however, unlike other unilaterally nephrectomised, often comorbid individuals, living kidney donors generally retain adequate renal functional reserve capacity to support compensatory hyperfiltration [, ]. Long-term studies suggest that eGFR trajectories remain stable or improve over time after donation [], and that eGFR<50Ā mL/min/1.72m2 is uncommon []. Although donors have a higher incidence of hypertension and diabetes, most studies have not demonstrated increased overall mortality or major cardiovascular events [ā]. A Norwegian cohort reported higher long-term mortality and cardiovascular risk factors, but these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the ethnically homogeneous population, absence of smoking data, and historical donor selection and management practices [, ]. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, cardiovascular risk reduction, and healthy lifestyle measures after donation.
Women with CKD are at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In living kidney donors, a systematic review found that the risk of preeclampsia increased from 1% to 4%; however, despite the relative increase, the absolute risk remains low and comparable to that of the general obstetric population, with higher BMI and pre-existing hypertension increasing risk []. Importantly, there is limited evidence of increased adverse fetal or neonatal outcomes, and post-donation pregnancy has not been associated with accelerated decline in kidney function compared with pre-donation pregnancy. Women who develop gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia after donation are at increased risk of future hypertension and should receive long-term follow-up [, ]. This represents an important opportunity for the transplant community to lead through accurate, evidence-based risk communication. Pregnancy-related risks should be interpreted in the context of study design and individual donor characteristics, with clear distinction between relative and absolute risk. Improved professional education and collaboration with obstetric specialists are essential to ensure balanced counselling and to avoid unnecessarily discouraging suitable women from living kidney donation.
Research on motivations for living kidney donation has identified themes including altruism, family dynamics, and perceived personal benefit [, ]. These findings support structured psychosocial screening to identify potential donors who may require additional support, particularly those with limited social support, financial stress, or major caregiving responsibilities. Donors reporting poorer outcomes often described inadequate pre-donation information, highlighting the importance of thorough informed consent, appropriate reassurance and ongoing psychological follow-up [ā].
Reducing inequalities
The UK ATTOM study recruited 2055 patients from all 23 transplant centres in the UK and demonstrated that recipients of living donor kidney transplantation were more likely to be young, white, married, and socioeconomically advantaged, with no sex difference in access []. Moreover, broader evidence indicates that women are more likely to donate but less likely to receive living donor transplants, particularly in spousal settings independently of HLA factors [, ]. Marked ethnic disparities persist, with non-white patients substantially underrepresented among LDKT recipients in both adult and paediatric populations [ā]. Older patients may be less likely to be referred because of perceived frailty or assumptions regarding limited benefit, while individuals with obesity may face additional barriers related to eligibility criteria and surgical concerns [, ā].
Barriers to LDKT include cultural, geographic, educational, and financial factors, with ethnic minority patients facing additional challenges such as overseas donors, language barriers, and reported discrimination. Improving access requires culturally competent care, including translation services and peer support within transplant programmes [ā].
Access to LDKT is reduced among less well-educated patients and is closely linked to lower health literacy. Many patient information leaflets and consent documents exceed the average reading age of 11 years []. Improving communication, understanding patient perspectives, and using peer educators from diverse communities may help improve engagement and access to living donation. Financial barriers play an important role and may contribute to sex disparities in living donation, as loss of income may disproportionately affect men in some households. Effective reimbursement policies for living donors are therefore essential and economically justified given the long-term cost savings of transplantation over dialysis.
Against this backdrop of inequality, system-level innovations offer opportunities to improve access. Kidney exchange programmes are among the most effective strategies, enabling incompatible donor-recipient pairs to swap donors with other pairs. In Europe, these programmes are typically coordinated by national transplant organisations with multidisciplinary teams responsible for donor-recipient matching, immunological assessment, registry management, logistics, and regulatory oversight. Building on the 2023 Global Convergence in Transplantation recommendation to expand paired donor exchange, the EURO-KEP program was developed, aiming to support national programmes by harmonising eligibility criteria, matching algorithms, and governance frameworks with the goal to establish a pan-European kidney exchange network under common rules []. A European exchange programme is considered feasible through stepwise harmonisation of clinical protocols, legal frameworks, interoperable registries, and pilot cross-border collaborations. By enlarging the donor pool, it could improve access for highly sensitised patients and recipients with uncommon blood groups, thereby reducing inequities in LDKT across Europe.
An additional strategy to increase living donation, adopted particularly in the UK and the Netherlands, is unspecified kidney donation to a stranger [, ]. Since legalisation in 2006, over 1,000 such transplants have been performed in the UK, with 83 unspecified donors enabling 119 living donor kidney transplants in 2022/23, accounting for 13% of UK living donor transplant activity []. Unspecified donation requires careful psychosocial and ethical assessment, robust informed consent, and appropriate management of donor expectations. The BOUnD study showed outcomes comparable to specified donors, without higher rates of withdrawal, regret, or healthcare costs, and estimated that a 10% increase in unspecified donation could save at least Ā£5 million nationally []. Long-term Dutch experience has also demonstrated high donor satisfaction []. Wider implementation requires experienced multidisciplinary teams, consistent protocols, and greater public and professional awareness []. In highly selected cases, unspecified donation has also been performed by individuals with serious life-limiting illnesses or benign renal conditions requiring nephrectomy, illustrating additional opportunities to expand living donation safely and ethically [, ].
Highlighting equity in pediatric transplantation is essential. Paediatric access to transplantation in Europe is limited by capacity, variability, and legislation. Addressing these issues requires local initiatives, advocacy, and consideration of broader factors []. Care models vary across regions, with differences in demand, surgeon availability, and reliance on mobile or virtual teams. Avoiding ongoing inequity for future generations remains a priority.
Surgical influences
Minimally invasive surgery can increase donor willingness not only by offering better cosmetic results and quick recovery, but also by increasing safety after donor nephrectomy. Effective surgeonādonor communication and comprehensive informed consent, including clear explanations of risks (e.g., the low mortality rate (<0.01% in the USA, 0.03% in meta-analysis), morbidity 2.3% (intra-op), 7.3% (post-op)) and available surgical options, are essential for improving transplant quality [, ]. Most centers still perform hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (57.4%), followed by laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (40.8%) []. Retroperitoneal access is underutilized, even though it avoids contact with intra-abdominal organs and colonic mobilization, which can prevent mesenteric or intra-abdominal organ injuries during surgery, as well as adhesions that can cause intestinal obstruction and possible infertility in the long term [, ]. Even though several publications show no significant difference between minimally invasive donor nephrectomy surgical techniques, others focus on the benefit of retroperitoneal access in avoiding intra-abdominal complications [, ]. Tailored surgical techniques for nephrectomy can reduce barriers and increase safety and satisfaction while expanding donor eligibility for living-donor kidney transplantation. Some examples are: Hand-assisted surgery to increase safety for donors who are obese or have challenging anatomical variations, while donors with low BMI may benefit from a pure laparoscopic or robotic approach. Vaginal extraction of the kidney or single-port techniques can improve cosmesis [ā]. Retroperitoneal access can be a good alternative to prevent intestinal adhesions for donors with previous abdominal surgery or gastrointestinal motility complaints. Surgeons can be reluctant to perform a right donor nephrectomy because of technical challenges []. Hand-assisted retroperitoneal access may also allow more liberal use of the right kidney due to technical advantages, thereby improving donor safety by always preserving the better kidney [, ]. Robotic assistance, offering superior precision and ergonomics, may offer benefits over laparoscopy in nephrectomies involving right-sided or complex vasculature donors [, ]. The major indication for kidney transplantation with robotic assistance is improved short- and long-term patient and graft survival by decreased wound complications []. Avoiding lower abdominal incisions and improved wound outcome is offering a chance for a kidney transplantation without having to first achieve weight loss and therefore, reducing dropout secondary to dialysis-related morbidity and mortality [, ]. Robotic approaches are also focused on offering lower analgesic requirements and a shorter learning curve compared to laparoscopic techniques. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for kidney transplant donors and recipients are also offering important contributions to daily practice. ERAS protocols in kidney transplantation enable optimizing pain control with minimal opioids and promote early mobilization, which have also contributed to faster recovery and increased satisfaction. ERAS offers similar readmission rates, morbidity, and mortality while reducing length of stay, post-operative complications, and postoperative pain [ā].
Transplanting incompatible pairs
National opportunities for living donor kidney transplantation for ABO incompatible pairs and highly HLA sensitized patients in Europe differ greatly. Mainly due to a variable access to exchange programs or desensitization strategies.
Although not available everywhere, ABO-incompatible transplantation is widely practiced, with rituximab and antigen-specific immunoadsorption protocols yielding outcomes comparable to ABO-compatible transplants, though infectious complications and higher rejection rates remain concerns [].
The European Guideline for the Management of sensitized kidney transplant patients proposes a clear approach to a highly sensitized patient []. Kidney exchange programs play an important role in this plan.
Successful living donor exchange programs exist on national levels including in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, South Alliance and Scandiatransplant []. In the United Kingdom Living Donor Kidney Sharing Scheme (UKLDKSS) > 70% of the recipients are transplanted making up 23% of the total living donor program. The large number of participants (>250 per run), the inclusion of non-directed altruistic donors (NDAD) and compatible pairs, and allowing ABO incompatible transplants, are, amongst others, contributing to its success. Recent data from the Dutch national kidney exchange programme further support this approach, demonstrating that long-term graft survival after kidney exchange is equivalent to that of direct living donor transplantation, with similar 10-year death-censored graft survival (91.6% vs. 91.9%) []. In addition donors participating in KEPs, have similar physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes to donors donating directly []. These findings support broader adoption of kidney exchange programmes and international collaboration.
Unfortunately, a group of very highly sensitized patients will most probably never receive a graft via these programs and will not be suitable for desensitization strategies. Imlifidase is not available in living donor transplantation. Deceased-donor allocation in acceptable mismatch programs, could offer a solution to these patients yielding long-term graft survival rates comparable to non-sensitized recipients [], but compromised when compared to LDKT.
Focus on expanding LDKT national exchange programs with more compatible pairs, promoting the participation of NDAD, allowing for ABOi transplantation and by international collaborations (i.e., EURO-KEP), will result in a larger donor pool and a higher chance for the highly sensitized patients to be transplanted in the future [].
An innovative national strategy in Italy uses deceased-donor initiated chains to overcome immunological incompatibility in living donor kidney transplantation, whereby a deceased-donor kidney enables transplantation for an incompatible pair and triggers a chain of living donor transplants []. Early experience demonstrates that, with appropriate ethical oversight and algorithm-based allocation, this approach substantially increases transplant rates among incompatible pairs, reduces waiting times, and improves the efficiency of paired exchange programmes while benefiting waitlisted patients through high-quality chain-ending grafts.
In summary, the integration of risk stratification, advanced antibody testing, individualized allocation strategies and successful and innovative exchange programs are essential to optimize outcomes for HLA and ABO incompatible LDKT pairs across Europe.
Measuring outcomes in kidney transplantation: New challenges and priorities
The heterogeneous outcomes reported in organ transplant studies prevent comparisons of results across studies and transplant programmes, analysis of international registers and data synthesis in meta-analyses. An increasingly attractive solution that can improve outcome reporting is to use a ācore outcome setā (COS), which is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that have to be measured and reported in all studies of a given disease. For example, the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplantation (SONG-Tx) initiative has established a consensus-based COS in kidney transplantation based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders [, ].
In the setting of improving short-term transplant outcomes and declining early graft failure, validated surrogate endpoints are increasingly important to evaluate optimization strategies and inform timely clinical and research decisions. The iBox (integrative box) score [], which combines functional, immunological, and histological parameters to estimate individualized risk of long-term graft loss, has been qualified by the European Medicines Agency as a secondary endpoint for kidney transplant trials and is undergoing further evaluation in a European randomized controlled study []. By enabling early assessment of treatment effects and risk stratification, iBox supports personalized post-transplant care and enhances the efficiency of clinical trials [], with parallel recognition through the FDA biomarker qualification pathway.
A meta-analysis of studies which used machine learning (ML) models in the prediction of kidney graft survival showed that ML-based models had a significantly higher performance than traditional statistical models []. ML methods are able to predict delayed graft function using donor maintenance-related variables [], graft rejection [] or the development of de novo donor-specific antibodies []. An unsupervised learning method integrating clinical, immune, and outcome variables revealed five transplant glomerulopathy associated with distinct causes and allograft survival profiles []. ML models in transplantation are limited by data quality, representativeness, interpretability, and overfitting, necessitating high-quality datasets, rigorous external validation, fair evaluation across populations, and further consensus to identify the most reliable and generalizable approaches for clinical use.
Europe hosts multiple national and international transplantation registries, and recent initiatives highlight the need for harmonised, high-quality data collection to support robust clinical and epidemiological research. The EDITH project and Council of Europe recommendations advocate for standardized, prospective datasets across all solid organ transplants, leveraging existing electronic systems to improve data completeness, comparability, and analytical value [, ]. The European Health Data Space Regulation, effective from March 2025, provides a major opportunity to enable secure, interoperable, and cross-border data sharing while ensuring data protection and patient control. Complementary initiatives, such as the BRAVEST project [], further underscore the importance of resilient and coordinated data infrastructures. Established systems like Eurotransplant and Scandiatransplant demonstrate how harmonised, interoperable registries can enhance allocation transparency, cross-border collaboration, and ultimately transplant outcomes across Europe.
Strategies to improve living donation through education and advocacy
From the donor perspective, emotional and psychological barriers often outweigh medical concerns in living donation, including guilt, fear of harm, financial worries, limited knowledge or social networks, and cultural or religious factors. Targeted support and improved education empower patients to engage proactively with potential donors and participate confidently in shared decision-making. Patient organizations help by providing education, support, advocacy, and a sense of community. Established in 2019, the ESOT-ETPO Alliance brings together healthcare professionals and transplant recipients. The ESOT Patient Inclusion Initiative promotes partnership and empowerment to improve knowledge and advocate for patient-centered care [].
Raising public awareness, building trust among stakeholders, promoting equitable access, removing financial barriers, and encouraging policy changes to improve donation rates, quality, and outcomes for patients and donors drive advocacy initiatives. The European Kidney Health Alliance (EKHA) is a strategic alliance of European non-profit organizations, including patient groups, nephrologists, researchers, and allied health professionals. Its mission is to influence EU health strategies and advocate for harmonized standards of care across Europe []. In December 2024, the European Council released conclusions on enhancing organ donation and transplantation, inviting the European Commission to continue work under the proposed action plan to increase donor organ availability and coordinate, promote, and strengthen cooperation between Member States []. EKHA and ESOT are working together to achieve this call to action.
Raising awareness about living donor kidney transplantation can be effectively achieved through home outreach programs, like REACH Transplant in the UK [] and the KRT program in the Netherlands []. These initiatives address attendeesā understanding of CKD, facilitate open discussion, support advocacy, and provide signposting to appropriate resources. Data from the Scottish Renal Registry illustrates significant socio-economic disparities in access to pre-emptive transplantation, with the most deprived patients markedly less likely to receive such interventions compared to their more affluent counterparts.
Conclusion
Living donor kidney transplantation remains the most effective renal replacement therapy for many patients with ESKD, yet access across Europe remains highly inequitable. Key priorities emerging from the symposium include harmonisation of donor assessment and informed consent, stronger donor protection and long-term follow-up, expansion of kidney exchange programmes including cross-border and unspecified donation, and targeted strategies to reduce social, financial, ethnic, and gender-based disparities. Advances in surgical techniques, immunological risk stratification, and digital tools offer important opportunities to improve donor and recipient outcomes but must be implemented within equitable and well-resourced systems of care (Table 2).
TABLE 2
| Key recommendations | |
|---|---|
| Domain | Recommendations |
| A. Harmonise donor evaluation and informed consent |
|
| B. Strengthen donor protection |
|
| C. Expand kidney exchange programmes |
|
| D. Reduce inequities in access |
|
| E. Improve data infrastructure |
|
| Implementation Priorities | |
| |
| Future research directions | |
| |
Key recommendations, implementation priorities, and future research directions.
The EURO-KEP programme and development of a pan-European kidney exchange network represent important opportunities to improve equitable access to living donor transplantation. Achieving sustained progress will require collaboration among clinicians, policymakers, patient organisations, and professional societies, supported by legal reform and investment in education and infrastructure. These priorities align with EKITAās 2026ā2027 action plan, which identifies promotion of LDKT as a core European objective.
Statements
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The meeting on which this manuscript is based was organised by ESOT.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank: DESCaRTES members for their contribution: Cristophe Mariat, Ilaria Gandolfini, Rachel Hellemans, Arzu Velioglu, Annelies de Weerd and other speakers at the symposium including: Gabriel Oniscu, Jen Lumsdaine, Ondrej Viklicky, Leonor Fayos de Arizon, Luuk Hilbrands, David Cucchiari, William Plan, Geir Mjoen, Luciano Potena, Laura Skinner, David Paredes-Zapata, Beatriz Dominguez-Gil, Hannah Maple, Eline Bunnik, Lucrezia Furian, Frank J.M.F. Dor, Jose Oberholzer, Ikka Helantera, Lisa Burnapp, Manuel Podesta, Jelena Stajanovic, Jenni Kippola, Orla Hobson. The authors would also like to thank patient advocate and national advocacy and projects manager with the Irish Kidney association Colin White and the General manager of EKHA Amanda Harvey-Dehaye. The authors are very grateful to Silvia Valls, EKITA Section Coordinator for the support and coordination.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Correction note
A correction has been made to this article. Details can be found at: 10.3389/ti.2026.17772.
References
1.
KimIMaggioreUKnightSRRana MagarRPengelLHMDorFJMF. Pre-emptive living donor kidney transplantation: a public health justification to change the default. Front Public Health (2023) 11:1124453. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1124453
2.
RanaMRKnightSRMaggioreULafrancaJADorFJMFPengelLHM. What are the benefits of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplant Rev (2023) 37(4):100798. 10.1016/j.trre.2023.100798
3.
European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM). Newsletter Transplant 2025 ā Transparency, Ethical Governance and Equitable Access. Available online at: https://www.edqm.eu/en/-/newsletter-transplant-2025-transparency-ethical-governance-and-equitable-access (Accessed March 6, 2026).
4.
LentineKLKasiskeBLLeveyASAdamsPLAlberĆŗJBakrMAet alKDIGO clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. Transplantation (2017) 101(8S):S7āS105. 10.1097/TP.0000000000001769
5.
ClaisseGGaillardFMariatC. Living kidney donor evaluation. Transplantation (2020) 104(12):2487ā96. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003242
6.
BTS/RA Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Guidelines 2018. Guidelines for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation. Available online at: https://bts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FINAL_LDKT-guidelines_June-2018.pdf (Accessed January 16, 2026).
7.
Van LondenMGaillardFZazaGOniscuGCGandolfiniIFurianLet alLiving kidney donation practices in Europe: a survey of DESCaRTES and EKITA transplantation working groups. Transpl Int (2025) 38:14802. 10.3389/ti.2025.14802
8.
NightingaleKStephensonJSivaprakasamRBrownTInstonNHamshoAet alThe variation in practice of the living donor kidney transplant pathway in the UK: results of a national survey. Transpl Int (2025) 38:15341. 10.3389/ti.2025.15341
9.
SannerMA. The donation process of living kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2005) 20(8):1707ā13. 10.1093/ndt/gfh861
10.
LunsfordSLSimpsonKSChavinKDMenchingKJMilesLGShillingLMet alRacial disparities in living kidney donation: is there a lack of willing donors or an excess of medically unsuitable candidates?Transplantation (2006) 82(7):876ā81. 10.1097/01.tp.0000232693.69773.42
11.
LapasiaJBKongSBusqueSScandlingJDChertowGMTanJC. Living donor evaluation and exclusion: the stanford experience. Clin Transplant (2011) 25(5):697ā704. 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2010.01336.x
12.
GrahamJMCourtneyAE. The adoption of a one-day donor assessment model in a living kidney donor transplant program: a quality improvement project. Am J Kidney Dis (2018) 71(2):209ā15. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.07.013
13.
The Department of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, OāNeillDCDavisNFLeeMJLittleDMorrinMM. Prevalence of incidental findings on multidetector computed tomography in potential nephrectomy donors: a prospective observational study. Exp Clin Transpl (2019) 17(2):177ā82. 10.6002/ect.2017.0340
14.
TanNCharoensakAAjwichaiKGritschHADanovitchGSchulamPet alPrevalence of incidental findings on abdominal computed tomography angiograms on prospective renal donors. Transplantation (2015) 99(6):1203ā7. 10.1097/TP.0000000000000486
15.
De MarcoECoronaDOriglioFGiuffridaGGiocoRPalermoCet alImpact of incidental findings during the evaluation of live kidney donors on post-transplant outcomes: a single center analysis. Transplant Proc (2019) 51(9):2906ā9. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.04.097
16.
KaulDRVeceGBlumbergELa HozRMIsonMGGreenMet alTen years of donor-derived disease: a report of the disease transmission advisory committee. Am J Transplant (2021) 21(2):689ā702. 10.1111/ajt.16178
17.
GroopmanEEMarasaMCameron-ChristieSPetrovskiSAggarwalVSMilo-RasoulyHet alDiagnostic utility of exome sequencing for kidney disease. N Engl J Med (2019) 380(2):142ā51. 10.1056/NEJMoa1806891
18.
ConnaughtonDMKennedyCShrilSMannNMurraySLWilliamsPAet alMonogenic causes of chronic kidney disease in adults. Kidney Int (2019) 95(4):914ā28. 10.1016/j.kint.2018.10.031
19.
Ethics Committee of the Transplantation Society. The consensus statement of the amsterdam forum on the care of the live kidney donor. Transplantation (2004) 78(4):491ā2. 10.1097/01.TP.0000136654.85459.1E
20.
PatelKBrothertonAChaudhryDEvisonFNietoTDabareDet alSurvival advantage comparing older living donor versus standard criteria donor kidney transplants. Transpl Int (2024) 37:12559. 10.3389/ti.2024.12559
21.
MamodeNVan AsscheKBurnappLCourtneyAvan DellenDHouthoffMet alDonor autonomy and self-sacrifice in living organ donation: an ethical legal and psychological aspects of transplantation (ELPAT) view. Transpl Int (2022) 35:10131. 10.3389/ti.2022.10131
22.
MartinDE. 7. Deciding about living organ donation: balancing risk management and autonomy. In: HansenSLSchicktanzS, editors. Bioethik/Medizinethik. 3. 1st ed. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag (2021). p. 133ā50. 10.14361/9783839446430-009
23.
SimmonsRGMarineSKSimmonsRL. Gift of Life: The Effect of Organ Transplantation on Individual, Family, and Societal Dynamics. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers (1988).
24.
MakinsN. Patients, doctors and risk attitudes. J Med Ethics (2023) 49(11):737ā41. 10.1136/jme-2022-108665
25.
TongAChapmanJRWongGCraigJC. Living kidney donor assessment: challenges, uncertainties and controversies among transplant nephrologists and surgeons. Am J Transplant (2013) 13(11):2912ā23. 10.1111/ajt.12411
26.
KortramKLafrancaJAIjzermansJNMDorFJMF. The need for a standardized informed consent procedure in live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review. Transplantation (2014) 98(11):1134ā43. 10.1097/TP.0000000000000518
27.
GrossiAASeverMSHellemansRMariatCCrespoMWatschingerBet alThe 3-Step model of informed consent for living kidney donation: a proposal on behalf of the DESCaRTES working group of the european renal association. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2023) 38(7):1613ā22. 10.1093/ndt/gfad022
28.
ElwynGDurandMASongJAartsJBarrPJBergerZet alA three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ (2017) 6:j4891. 10.1136/bmj.j4891
29.
OrtizFMarsonLThomasRKousiosARistaELefaucheurCet alEvaluating risk in kidney living donors. Transpl Int (2025) 38:14024. 10.3389/ti.2025.14024
30.
MjĆøenGHallanSHartmannAFossAMidtvedtKĆyenOet alLong-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int (2014) 86(1):162ā7. 10.1038/ki.2013.460
31.
MuzaaleADMassieABWangMCMontgomeryRAMcBrideMAWainrightJLet alRisk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation. JAMA (2014) 311(6):579ā86. 10.1001/jama.2013.285141
32.
OāKeeffeLMRamondAOliver-WilliamsCWilleitPPaigeETrotterPet alMid- and long-term health risks in living kidney donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med (2018) 168(4):276ā84. 10.7326/M17-1235
33.
Meier-KriescheHUScholdJDSrinivasTRReedAKaplanB. Kidney transplantation halts cardiovascular disease progression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Transpl (2004) 4(10):1662ā8. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00573.x
34.
SantosAHIbrahimHAlquadanKBelalALeghrouzMMehtaRet alRisk factors for one-year post-nephrectomy decline in renal function of living kidney donors: quantile regression analysis based on estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction percentiles. Transpl Int (2025) 38:14749. 10.3389/ti.2025.14749
35.
KasiskeBLAnderson-HaagTIsraniAKKalilRSKimmelPLKrausESet alA prospective controlled study of living kidney donors: three-year follow-up. Am J Kidney Dis (2015) 66(1):114ā24. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.01.019
36.
AlmeidaMReis PereiraPSilvanoJRibeiroCPedrosoSTafuloSet alLongitudinal trajectories of estimated glomerular filtration rate in a European population of living kidney donors. Transpl Int (2024) 37:13356. 10.3389/ti.2024.13356
37.
FerroCJTownendJN. Risk for subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular disease after living kidney donation: is it clinically relevant?Clin Kidney J (2022) 15(4):644ā56. 10.1093/ckj/sfab271
38.
HolscherCMBaeSThomasAGHendersonMLHaugenCEDiBritoSRet alEarly hypertension and diabetes after living kidney donation: a national cohort study. Transplantation (2019) 103(6):1216ā23. 10.1097/TP.0000000000002411
39.
KrƤttliJBuessDDieboldMWehmeierCSidlerDGolshayanDet alMetabolic risk after living kidney donation: an analysis of the Swiss organ living-donor health registry. Swiss Med Wkly (2025) 155(6):4513. 10.57187/s.4513
40.
The Department of Nephrology, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey, TatarEKarataÅMTercanICOkutGUsoÄluBOnset of hypertension in living kidney donors after donor nephrectomy: our 20 years of experience. Exp Clin Transpl (2019) 17(Suppl. 1):156ā8. 10.6002/ect.MESOT2018.P32
41.
ChaudryMGislasonGHFosbĆølELKĆøberLGerdsTATorp-PedersenC. Hypertension, cardiovascular disease and cause of death in Danish living kidney donors: matched cohort study. BMJ Open (2020) 10(11):e041122. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041122
42.
MunchPChristiansenCFBirnHErikstrupCNĆørgaardM. Is the risk of cardiovascular disease increased in living kidney donors? A Danish population-based cohort study. Am J Transplant (2021) 21(5):1857ā65. 10.1111/ajt.16384
43.
MjĆøenGMaggioreUKessarisNKimenaiDWatschingerBMariatCet alLong-term risks after kidney donation: how do we inform potential donors? A survey from DESCARTES and EKITA transplantation working groups. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2021) 36(9):1742ā53. 10.1093/ndt/gfab035
44.
PippiasMSkinnerLNoordzijMReisƦterAVAbramowiczDStelVSet alPregnancy after living kidney donation, a systematic review of the available evidence, and a review of the current guidance. Am J Transplant (2022) 22(10):2360ā80. 10.1111/ajt.17122
45.
van BurenMCMeindertsJROudmaijerCAJde JongMFCGroenHRoyaardsTet alLong-term kidney and maternal outcomes after pregnancy in living kidney donors. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11181. 10.3389/ti.2023.11181
46.
PalzerEFHelgesonESEvansMDVockDMMatasAJ. Long-term outcomes associated with postākidney donation pregnancy complications. Transplantation (2023) 107(7):1615ā23. 10.1097/TP.0000000000004540
47.
LennerlingAForsbergAMeyerKNybergG. Motives for becoming a living kidney donor. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19(6):1600ā5. 10.1093/ndt/gfh138
48.
TongAChapmanJRWongGKanellisJMcCarthyGCraigJC. The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis. Am J Kidney Dis (2012) 60(1):15ā26. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.11.043
49.
MenjivarATorresXManyalichMFehrman-EkholmIPapachristouCde Sousa-AmorimEet alPsychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):21343. 10.1038/s41598-020-78032-8
50.
MenjivarATorresXParedesDAvinyoNPeriJMDe Sousa-AmorimEet alAssessment of donor satisfaction as an essential part of living donor kidney transplantation: an eleven-year retrospective study. Transpl Int (2018) 31(12):1332ā44. 10.1111/tri.13334
51.
TorresXMenjivarABaillĆØsERangilTDelgadoIMusqueraMet alThe Spanish version of the fear of kidney failure questionnaire: validity, reliability, and characterization of living donors with the highest fear of kidney failure. Transplant Direct (2021) 7(2):e655. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001100
52.
ShiYZhangHNieZFuY. Quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms in living related kidney donors: a cross-sectional study. Int Urol Nephrol (2023) 55(9):2335ā43. 10.1007/s11255-023-03542-z
53.
WuDARobbMLWatsonCJEForsytheJLRTomsonCRVCairnsJet alBarriers to living donor kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom: a national observational study. Nephrol Dial Transpl (2017) 32(5):890ā900. 10.1093/ndt/gfx036
54.
CozziEĆlvarezMCarmonaMMahĆlloBForsytheJLomeroMet alAn analysis by the european committee on organ transplantation of the council of Europe outlining the international landscape of donors and recipients sex in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int (2022) 35:10322. 10.3389/ti.2022.10322
55.
ZimmermanDDonnellySMillerJStewartDAlbertSE. Gender disparity in living renal transplant donation. Am J Kidney Dis (2000) 36(3):534ā40. 10.1053/ajkd.2000.9794
56.
HartALentineKLSmithJMMillerJSkeansMPrenticeMet alOPTN/SRTR 2019 annual data report: Kidney. Am J Transpl (2021) 21(Suppl. 2):21ā137. 10.1111/ajt.16502
57.
AmaralSMcCullochCEBlackEWinnickiELeeBRollGRet alTrends in living donation by race and ethnicity among children with end-stage renal disease in the United States, 1995ā2015. Transplant Direct (2020) 6(7):e570. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001008
58.
Al AmmaryFYuYFerzolaAMotterJDMassieABYuSet alThe first increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years. Am J Transpl (2020) 20(12):3590ā8. 10.1111/ajt.16136
59.
SinghPNgYHUnruhM. Kidney transplantation among the elderly: challenges and opportunities to improve outcomes. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis (2016) 23(1):44ā50. 10.1053/j.ackd.2015.11.002
60.
BenesBLangewischEDWestphalSG. Kidney transplant candidacy: addressing common medical and psychosocial barriers to transplant. Adv Kidney Dis Health (2024) 31(5):387ā99. 10.1053/j.akdh.2024.03.002
61.
OganesovaZMacLaughlinHLMcCaffertyKPotthoffSGreenwoodSVickerstaffVet alPatient and clinician perspectives on the management of obesity in kidney failure prior to kidney transplantation: a mixed-methods systematic review. eClinicalMedicine (2026) 91:103649. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103649
62.
WongKOwen-SmithACaskeyFMacNeillSTomsonCRVDorFJMFet alInvestigating ethnic disparity in living-donor kidney transplantation in the UK: patient-identified reasons for non-donation among family members. J Clin Med (2020) 9(11):3751. 10.3390/jcm9113751
63.
ZhangCMathurAK. Breaking barriers and bridging gaps: advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in kidney transplant care for black and Hispanic patients in the United States. Transpl Int (2023) 36:11455. 10.3389/ti.2023.11455
64.
BaileyPKCaskeyFJMacNeillSTomsonCRVDorFJMFBen-ShlomoY. Mediators of socioeconomic inequity in living-donor kidney transplantation: results from a UK multicenter case-control study. Transplant Direct (2020) 6(4):e540. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000986
65.
Chisholm-BurnsMASpiveyCAPickettLR. Health literacy in solid-organ transplantation: a model to improve understanding. Patient Prefer Adherence (2018) 12:2325ā38. 10.2147/PPA.S183092
66.
Participants to the Global Summit in Transplantation, organized by the OrganizaciĆ³n Nacional de Trasplantes under the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthcareāCouncil of Europe, the European Society for Organ Transplantation, and The Transplantation Society, co-sponsored by the World Health Organization and supported by the International Society of Nephrology in Santander, Spain, November 9 and 10, 2023. Santander statement: towards global convergence in transplantation: sufficiency, transparency, and oversight. Transplantation (2025) 109(1):7ā9. 10.1097/TP.0000000000005286
67.
DorFJMFMasseyEKFrunzaMJohnsonRLennerlingALovĆ©nCet alNew classification of ELPAT for living organ donation. Transplantation (2011) 91(9):935ā8. 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182129236
68.
PronkMCZuidemaWCWeimarWVan De WeteringJIsmailSYMasseyEK. Twenty years of unspecified kidney donation: unspecified donors looking back on their donation experiences. Transpl Int (2023) 36:10959. 10.3389/ti.2023.10959
69.
NHS Blood Transplant. Organ and tissue donation and transplantation - activity report 2022/23 (2026). Available online at: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/30198/activity-report-2022-2023-final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (Accessed May 10, 2026).
70.
MamodeNNortonSMcCronePChilcotJDraperHGogalniceanuPet alBarriers to and outcomes of unspecified kidney donation in the UK: bound, a mixed-methods study. Health Soc Care Deliv Res (2025) 13(20):1ā43. 10.3310/RTEW9328
71.
BurnappLVan AsscheKLennerlingASlaatsDVan DellenDMamodeNet alRaising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT* view. Clin Kidney J (2020) 13(2):159ā65. 10.1093/ckj/sfz067
72.
CeuppensSKimenaiHJKlopKWZuidemaWCBetjesMGHWeimarWet alUnspecified live kidney donation by urological patients. WJT (2020) 10(8):215ā22. 10.5500/wjt.v10.i8.215
73.
RakkĆ©YSZuidemaWCHilhorstMTErdmanRAMMasseyEKBetjesMGHet alSeriously ill patients as living unspecified kidney donors: Rationale and justification. Transplantation (2015) 99(1):232ā5. 10.1097/TP.0000000000000281
74.
Van ZwietenAWongG. Inequities in pediatric kidney transplantation: time for upstream action to tackle inequities in power, money, and resources. Kidney360 (2025) 6(6):889ā91. 10.34067/KID.0000000804
75.
MassieABMotterJDSnyderJJLevanMLSegevDL. Thirty-year trends in perioperative mortality risk for living kidney donors. JAMA (2024) 332(12):1015ā7. 10.1001/jama.2024.14527
76.
KortramKIjzermansJNMDorFJMF. Perioperative events and complications in minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplantation (2016) 100(11):2264ā75. 10.1097/TP.0000000000001327
77.
LentineKLSmithJMLydenGRMillerJMBookerSEDolanTGet alOPTN/SRTR 2023 annual data report: Kidney. Am J Transplant (2025) 25(2):S22āS137. 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.01.020
78.
AkinEBSoykan BarlasIDayangacM. Handāassisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy offers more liberal use of right kidneys: lessons learned from 565 cases ā a retrospective singleācenter study. Transpl Int (2021) 34(3):445ā54. 10.1111/tri.13806
79.
BangaNNicolD. Techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. BJU Int (2012) 110(9):1368ā73. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11058.x
80.
Ćzdemir-van BrunschotDMDKoningGGVan LaarhovenKCJHMErgĆ¼nMvan HorneSBCERoversMMet alA comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE (2015) 10(3):e0121131. 10.1371/journal.pone.0121131
81.
ElmaraezyAAbushoukAIKamelMNegidaANaserO. Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis. Int J Surg (2017) 40:83ā90. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.018
82.
HeBBremnerAHanYHamdorfJM. Determining the superior technique for living-donor nephrectomy: the laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus the retroperitoneoscopic approach. Exp Clin Transpl (2016) 14(2):129ā38. 10.6002/ect.2015.0237
83.
KarayagizAHOzdemirEBesliSPolatkanSAVYilmazGErturkTet alComparison of long-term outcomes of standard and transvaginal kidney extraction in laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. J Laparoendoscopic & Adv Surg Tech (2021) 31(11):1309ā14. 10.1089/lap.2020.0949
84.
AbdessaterMChampyCMDa CostaJBCourcierJYiouRHoznekAet alComparison of the iliac, vaginal and umbilical graft extraction in robot-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. World J Urol (2021) 39(7):2783ā8. 10.1007/s00345-020-03462-y
85.
ChinCPLevyMAwanMPaleseM. Single-port and multi-port robotic donor nephrectomy. J Endourology (2025) 39(S1):S66āS71. 10.1089/end.2024.0421
86.
SerranoOKKirchnerVBangdiwalaAVockDMDunnTBFingerEBet alEvolution of living donor nephrectomy at a single center: long-term outcomes with 4 different techniques in greater than 4000 donors over 50 years. Transplantation (2016) 100(6):1299ā305. 10.1097/TP.0000000000001251
87.
KlopKWJKokNFMDolsLFCDorFJMFTranKTCTerkivatanTet alCan right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study. Transpl Int (2014) 27(2):162ā9. 10.1111/tri.12226
88.
SpaggiariMGarcia-RocaRTullaKAOkoyeOTDi BellaCOberholzerJet alRobotic assisted living donor nephrectomies: a safe alternative to laparoscopic technique for kidney transplant donation. Ann Surg (2022) 275(3):591ā5. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004247
89.
MusqueraMPrudhommeTAjamiTMartĆnezCCarbonellEMunniMet alLiving-donor kidney transplantation: comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional open technique. Transpl Int (2025) 38:14953. 10.3389/ti.2025.14953
90.
LynchRJRanneyDNShijieCLeeDSSamalaNEnglesbeMJ. Obesity, surgical site infection, and outcome following renal transplantation. Ann Surg (2009) 250(6):1014ā20. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b4ee9a
91.
OberholzerJGiulianottiPDanielsonKKSpaggiariMBejarano-PinedaLBiancoFet alMinimally invasive robotic kidney transplantation for Obese patients previously denied access to transplantation. Am J Transplant (2013) 13(3):721ā8. 10.1111/ajt.12078
92.
TzvetanovIGSpaggiariMTullaKADi BellaCOkoyeODi CoccoPet alRobotic kidney transplantation in the obese patient: 10-year experience from a single center. Am J Transpl (2020) 20(2):430ā40. 10.1111/ajt.15626
93.
AthertonSWMasseyMSNguyenTWangDWSubramaniamKAbdelwahidEet alEvaluating a unique enhanced recovery protocol in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a single center experience. Clin Transplant (2023) 37(10):e15051. 10.1111/ctr.15051
94.
ByrneMHVMehmoodASummersDMHosgoodSANicholsonML. A systematic review of living kidney donor enhanced recovery after surgery. Clin Transplant (2021) 35(7):e14384. 10.1111/ctr.14384
95.
ThomasRABChalmersHKUsherHMEPestrinOSimpson-DentEJWebbMIet alPositive impact of ERAS programme on living and deceased donor renal transplant recipients during COVID-19 pandemic. Transpl Int (2025) 38:14238. 10.3389/ti.2025.14238
96.
ScurtFGEwertLMertensPRHallerHSchmidtBMWChatzikyrkouC. Clinical outcomes after ABO-incompatible renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet (2019) 393(10185):2059ā72. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32091-9
97.
MamodeNBestardOClaasFFurianLGriffinSLegendreCet alEuropean guideline for the management of kidney transplant patients with HLA antibodies: by the European Society for organ transplantation working group. Transpl Int (2022) 35:10511. 10.3389/ti.2022.10511
98.
KlimentovaXDomĆnguez-GilBVianaAManloveDAnderssonTAshkenaziTet alInternational kidney paired donation programs: Evolution and practices of 4 large collaborations. Transplantation (2025) 110:e1209āe1219. 10.1097/TP.0000000000005602
99.
Van De LaarSCDe WeerdAEBemelmanFJIduMMde VriesAPAlwaynIPet alFavorable living donor kidney transplantation outcomes within a national kidney exchange program: a propensity scoreāmatching analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol (2025) 20(3):440ā50. 10.2215/CJN.0000000611
100.
Van De LaarSCWiltschutBWOudmaijerCAJMullerKMasseyEKPorteRJet alHealth-related quality of life in living kidney donors participating in kidney exchange programmes. Clin Kidney J (2025) 18(2):sfae374. 10.1093/ckj/sfae374
101.
FurianLNicolĆ²ADi BellaCCardilloMCozziERigottiP. Kidney exchange strategies: new aspects and applications with a focus on deceased donorāinitiated chains. Transpl Int (2020) 33(10):1177ā84. 10.1111/tri.13712
102.
EURO-KEP. European kidney paired exchange programme. Available online at: www.hnbts.hu/euro-kep/european-kidney-paired-exchange-programme-euro-kep (Accessed March 8, 2026).
103.
TongABuddeKGillJJosephsonMAMarsonLPruettTLet alStandardized outcomes in nephrology-transplantation: a global initiative to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation. Transplant Direct (2016) 2(6):e79. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000593
104.
TongAGillJBuddeKMarsonLReesePPRosenbloomDet alToward establishing core outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation: report of the standardized outcomes in nephrologyākidney transplantation consensus workshops. Transplantation (2017) 101(8):1887ā96. 10.1097/TP.0000000000001774
105.
LoupyAAubertOOrandiBJNaesensMBouatouYRaynaudMet alPrediction system for risk of allograft loss in patients receiving kidney transplants: international derivation and validation study. BMJ (2019) 17:l4923. 10.1136/bmj.l4923
106.
RaynaudMAubertODivardGReesePPKamarNYooDet alDynamic prediction of renal survival among deeply phenotyped kidney transplant recipients using artificial intelligence: an observational, international, multicohort study. The Lancet Digital Health (2021) 3(12):e795āe805. 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00209-0
107.
RavindhranBChandakPSchaferNKundaliaKHwangWAntoniadisSet alMachine learning models in predicting graft survival in kidney transplantation: meta-analysis. BJS Open (2023) 7(2):zrad011. 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad011
108.
CostaSDDe AndradeLGMBarrosoFVCOliveiraCMCd.DaherEDFFernandesPFCBCet alThe impact of deceased donor maintenance on delayed kidney allograft function: a machine learning analysis. PLoS ONE (2020) 15(2):e0228597. 10.1371/journal.pone.0228597
109.
MinatoACDSHannunPGCBarbosaAMPda RochaNCMachado-RugoloJCardosoMMd. Aet alMachine learning model to predict graft rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc (2023) 55(9):2058ā62. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2023.07.021
110.
NitaGERothwellAHowseMRidgwayDHammadAMehraSet alUsing machine learning to examine pre-transplant factors influencing de novo HLA-specific antibody development post-kidney transplant. Transpl Immunol (2025) 92:102269. 10.1016/j.trim.2025.102269
111.
AubertOHigginsSBouatouYYooDRaynaudMVigliettiDet alArchetype analysis identifies distinct profiles in renal transplant recipients with transplant glomerulopathy associated with allograft survival. J Am Soc Nephrol (2019) 30(4):625ā39. 10.1681/ASN.2018070777
112.
EDITH. EDITH Project. Final Report (2022). Available online at: www.dso.de/SiteCollectionDocuments/EDITH-Final-Layman-s-brochure.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2024).
113.
Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec. 7 of the committee of ministers to member states on establishing national harmonised organ transplant registries with a view to facilitating international data sharing (2023). Available online at: https://rm.coe.int/0900001680ac62af (Accessed March 20, 2024).
114.
BRAVEST. Building resilience against crisis: a systematic and global approach to adVancE organ safety and supply in transplantation (2024). Available online at: www.bravest-project.eu/ (Accessed March 20, 2024).
115.
JansenNMapleHForsbergALoudFMcColaughLMurphyMet alBuilding a bridge between patients and transplant healthcare professionals ā a descriptive study. Transpl Int (2021) 34(11):2098ā105. 10.1111/tri.14111
116.
VanholderRStelVSJagerKJLameireNLoudFOberbauerRet alHow to increase kidney transplant activity throughout EuropeāAn advocacy review by the european kidney health alliance. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2019) 34(8):1254ā61. 10.1093/ndt/gfy390
117.
INIT. Council conclusions on enhancing organ donation and transplantation - council of the european union - december 2024. Available online at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16568-2024-INIT/en/pdf (Accessed January 18, 2026).
118.
HobsonOLumsdaineJSherifAOniscuGC. A home education service to increase knowledge of treatment options and improve attitudes to living donor kidney transplantation. Prog Transpl (2023) 33(1):95ā9. 10.1177/15269248221145041
119.
RedekerSIsmailSEerenHVMasseyEKWeimarWOppeMet alA dynamic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the kidney team at home intervention in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ (2022) 23(4):597ā606. 10.1007/s10198-021-01383-0
Summary
Keywords
cross-border organ exchange, donor evaluation and safety, equity in transplantation, living donor kidney transplantation, transplant registry harmonisation
Citation
Kousios A, Baas M, Manonelles A, Ortiz F, Rista E, Thomas R, Lefaucheur C, Akin EB and Marson L (2026) Landscape of current practices and future perspectives in living donor kidney donation in Europe: proceedings of a pan-European symposium by the European kidney transplant association section of the European Society for Organ Transplantation. Transpl. Int. 39:16548. doi: 10.3389/ti.2026.16548
Received
10 March 2026
Revised
29 May 2026
Accepted
15 June 2026
Published
01 July 2026
Corrected
28 September 2026
Volume
39 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
Ā© 2026 Kousios, Baas, Manonelles, Ortiz, Rista, Thomas, Lefaucheur, Akin and Marson.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andreas Kousios, andreaskousios@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.