Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:03:26.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NEW LOOK AT ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION MODELS AND DOUBLE MATCHING QUEUES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

Onno J. Boxma ,
Israel David ,
David Perry  and
Wolfgang Stadje
Onno J. Boxma
Affiliation:
EURANDOM and Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]
Israel David
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel E-mail: [email protected]
David Perry
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31909Israel E-mail: [email protected]
Wolfgang Stadje
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Osnabrück, 49069 Osnabrück, Germany E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we propose a prototype model for the problem of managing waiting lists for organ transplantations. Our model captures the double-queue nature of the problem: there is a queue of patients, but also a queue of organs. Both may suffer from “impatience”: the health of a patient may deteriorate, and organs cannot be preserved longer than a certain amount of time. Using advanced tools from queueing theory, we derive explicit results for key performance criteria: the rate of unsatisfied demands and of organ outdatings, the steady-state distribution of the number of organs on the shelf, the waiting time of a patient, and the long-run fraction of time during which the shelf is empty of organs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 135 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Asmussen, S. (2003). Applied probability and queues, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
2.Baccelli, F. & Hebuterne, G. (1981). On queues with impatient customers. In Kylstra, F. J., (ed.) Proceedings of performance ’81. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar
3.Boxma, O.J., Perry, D. & Stadje, W. (2010). The M/G/1+G queue revisited. Technical report 2010-002, EURANDOM. To appear in Queueing System.Google Scholar
4.Boxma, O.J., Perry, D., Stadje, W. & Zacks, S. (2009). The busy period of an M/G/1 queue with customer impatience. Technical report, EURANDOM. Journal of Applied Probability 47: 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Boxma, O.J., Perry, D., Stadje, W. & Zacks, S. (2009). The M/G/1 queue with quasi-restricted accessibility. Stochastic Models 25: 151–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Brill, P.H. (2008). Level crossing methods in stochastic models. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Cohen, J.W. (1976). On regenerative processes in queueing theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.David, I. (1995). A sequential assignment match processes with general renewal arrival times. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 9: 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.David, I. & Moatty-Assa, M. (2009). A stylistic queuing-like model for the allocation of organs on the public list. Technical report, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University, Israel.Google Scholar
10.David, I. & Yechiali, U. (1985). A time dependent stopping problem with application to live organ transplants. Operations Research 33: 491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.David, I. & Yechiali, U. (1990). Sequential assignment match processes with arrival of candidates and offers. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 4: 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Derman, C., Lieberman, G.J. & Ross, S.M. (1972). A sequential stochastic assignment problem. Management Science 18: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Hornberger, J.C. & Ahn, J.H. (1997). Deciding eligibility for transplantation when a donor kidney becomes available. Medical Decision Making 17: 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Kaspi, H. & Perry, D. (1984). Inventory systems of perishable commodities with renewal input and Poisson output. Advances in Applied Probability 16: 402–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kella, O. & Whitt, W. (1992). Useful martingales for stochastic storage processes. Journal of Applied Probability 29: 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Lee, C.H., Chertow, G.M. & Zenios, S.A. (2008). Optimal initiation and management of dialysis therapy. Operations Research 56: 1428–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Perry, D. & Asmussen, S. (1995). Rejection rules in the M/G/1 type queue. Queueing Systems 19: 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Perry, D. & Stadje, W. (1999). Perishable inventory systems with impatient demands. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 50: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Righter, R. (1987). The stochastic sequential assignment problem with random deadlines. Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 1: 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Righter, R. (1989). A resource allocation problem in a random environment. Operations Research 37: 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Su, X. & Zenios, S.A. (2004). Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queuing discipline. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 6: 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Su, X. & Zenios, S.A. (2005). Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Operations Research 53: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Su, X. & Zenios, S.A. (2006). Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Science 52: 1647–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Ur, S., Trick, M. & Sleator, D. (1992). Analysis of online algorithms for organ allocation. In van Leeuwen, J. (ed.), Algorithms, software, architectures. Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland), pp. 458–464.Google Scholar
25.Zenios, S.A. (1999). Modeling the transplant waiting list: a queuing model with reneging. Queueing Systems 31: 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Zenios, S.A. (2002). Optimal control of a paired-kidney exchange program. Management Science 48: 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Zenios, S.A., Chertow, G.M. & Wein, L.M. (2000). Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Operations Research 48: 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar