Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

Long-Term Medical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Living Liver Donors

Due to the enduring organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation has been a valuable treatment strategy for advanced liver disease patients for over 20 years. A variety of reviews have summarized the extensive data now available on medical and psychosocial risks to living donors in the aftermath of donation. However, evidence on donor medical and psychosocial outcomes beyond the first year postdonation has not been synthesized in any previous review. The evidence base on such "long-term" outcomes has been growing in recent years. A review of this evidence would therefore be timely and could serve as an important resource to assist transplant centers in their efforts to fully educate prospective donors and gain informed consent, as well as develop appropriate postdonation clinical care and surveillance plans. We reviewed recent literature on long-term donor outcomes, considering (a) medical outcomes, including mortality risk, rates of complications, abnormalities detected in laboratory testing, and the progress of liver regeneration; and (b) donor-reported psychosocial outcomes reflecting physical, emotional, and interpersonal/socioeconomic well-being, as well as overall health-related quality of life. We summarize limitations and gaps in available evidence, and we provide recommendations for future research and clinical care activities focused on long-term outcomes in liver donors.

3D T2-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the addition of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography (T1w-MRC) to 3D T2-weighted MRC (T2w-MRC) improves the confidence and diagnostic accuracy of biliary anatomy in living liver donors.

METHODS

Two abdominal radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed pre-operative MR studies in 58 consecutive living liver donors. The second-order bile duct visualization on T1w- and T2w-MRC images was rated on a 4-point scale. The readers also independently recorded the biliary anatomy and their diagnostic confidence using (1) combined T1w- and T2w-MRC, and (2) T2w-MRC. In the 23 right lobe donors, the biliary anatomy at imaging and the imaging-predicted number of duct orifices at surgery were compared to intra-operative findings.

RESULTS

T1w-MRC had a higher proportion of excellent visualization than T2w-MRC, 66% vs. 45% for reader 1 and 60% vs. 31% for reader 2. The median confidence score for biliary anatomy diagnosis was significantly higher with combined T1w- and T2w-MRC than T2w-MRC alone for both readers (Reader 1: 3 vs. 2, p < 0.001; Reader 2: 3 vs. 1, p < 0.001). Compared to intra-operative findings, the accuracy of imaging-predicted number of duct orifices using combined T1w-and T2w-MRC was significantly higher than that using T2w-MRC alone (p = 0.034 for reader 1, p = 0.0082 for reader 2).

CONCLUSION

The addition of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1w-MRC to 3D T2w-MRC improves second-order bile duct visualization and increases the confidence in biliary anatomy diagnosis and the accuracy in the imaging-predicted number of duct orifices acquired during right lobe harvesting.

Long-term health-related quality of life in living liver donors: A south Asian experience

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL), changes in lifestyle, and complications in living liver donors at a single transplant center from southern India.

METHODS

A total of 64 consecutive living liver donors from 2008 to 2011 were evaluated; 46 of 64 donors completed the short form 36 (SF-36) via telephonic interviews or clinic consultations. Mean follow-up was 48 months (range: 37-84 months).

RESULTS

There was no mortality in the donors evaluated. Overall morbidity was 23%, which included wound infections (4.3%), incisional hernia (2.1%), biliary leak (4.3%), and nonspecific complaints regarding the incision site (15.2%). All 46 donors who completed the SF-36 had no change in career path or predonation lifestyle. A total of 40 of 46 (87%) donors had no limitations, decrements, or disability in any domain, while six of 46 (13%) had these in some domains of which general health (GH) was most severely affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor hepatectomy is safe with acceptable morbidity and excellent long-term HRQOL with no change in career path or significant alteration of lifestyle for donors.

The Long-Term Follow-up and Support for Living Organ Donors: A Center-Based Initiative Founded on Developing a Community of Living Donors

Transplant professionals recognize that the long-term follow-up of living organ donors is a priority, yet there has been no implemented solution to this problem. This critical gap is essential, because the transplant field is now emphasizing living donation as a means to address the organ shortage. We detail our living donor initiative, which sets several priorities we recognize as fundamental to persons who have donated organs at our transplant center. This intervention attempts to mitigate the donor and center factors that are known to contribute to the lack of long-term follow-up. Beyond that, our goals are aimed at providing ongoing engagement, wellness, clinical data accrual, laboratory follow-up, and social support for our living donors, in continuity. Our ultimate goal is to nurture the development of local living donor community networks by providing social engagement for current and past donors, which also serves as a platform for greater population education on the societal importance of living donation. This initiative is based on joint recognition by our transplant team and our hospital leadership that supporting the long-term welfare of living donors is essential to accomplishing the goal of expanding living donor transplantation. The transplant team and hospital missions are aligned, and both contribute resources to the initiative.

The learning curves in living donor hemiliver graft procurement using small upper midline incision

The learning curve for performing living donor hemiliver procurement (LDHP) via small upper midline incision (UMI) has not been determined. Living donors (n=101) who underwent LDHP via UMI were included to investigate the learning curve using cumulative sum analysis. The cumulative sum analysis showed that nine cases for right lobe (case #23) and 19 cases for left lobe (case #32 in the whole series) are needed for stable and acceptable surgical outcomes in LDHP via UMI. The established phase (n=69, since case #33) had a significantly shorter operative time, a smaller incision size, and less blood loss than the previous learning phase (n=32, serial case number up to the last 19th left lobe case). Multivariate analysis showed that the learning phase, high body mass index ≥25 kg/m² , and left lobe graft procurement are the factors associated with surgical events including operative blood loss ≥400 mL, operative time ≥300 minutes, or surgical complications ≥Clavien-Dindo grade II. There is an obvious learning curve in performing LDHP via UMI, and 32 cases including both 19 cases for left lobe and nine cases for right lobe are needed for having stable and acceptable surgical outcomes.

Use of a severity indicator as a predictor of the use of hepatic transplantation resources

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of a severity indicator for end-stage liver disease as a predictor of resource use in a teaching hospital in São Paulo.

METHOD

Descriptive, retrospective study, classifying independent variables in seven key dimensions: identification/risk rating; length of stay/use of advanced life support; imaging; clinical analysis; special procedures; blood products in the intensive care unit; and in the operating room. The frequencies were analyzed by linear regression analysis of variance to detect relevance due to the dependent variable (severity indicator) in 76 cases seen in 2013.

RESULTS

Among the variables studied, those that presented relevance due to the functional risk score were laboratory measurements of bilirubin, amylase, transaminase, blood count, creatine phosphokinase (p<0.05), hemotherapy procedures fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelet concentrate (p<0.05), and Doppler echocardiography image (p<0.07).

CONCLUSION

Given the results/objective of this study, it is concluded that the indicator presents a potential predictive capability in the use of postoperative resources of liver receptors in the size, clinical analysis, images and hemotherapy dimensions.

OBJETIVO

Avaliar o uso do indicador de gravidade para doenças hepáticas terminais como fator preditivo do uso de recursos em um hospital-escola de São Paulo.

MÉTODO

Estudo descritivo, retrospectivo, classificando variáveis independentes em sete dimensões principais: identificação/classificação de risco; tempo de permanência/uso de suporte avançado à vida; exames de imagem; análises clínicas; procedimentos especiais; hemoderivados em unidade de terapia intensiva; e em centro cirúrgico. As frequências foram analisadas por regressão linear com análise de variância para detecção de relevâncias face à variável dependente (indicador de gravidade) em 76 casos atendidos em 2013.

RESULTADOS

Dentre as variáveis estudadas, apresentaram relevância em função do escore de risco funcional as dosagens laboratoriais de bilirrubina, amilase, transaminase, hemograma, creatinofosfoquinase (p<0,05), procedimentos hemoterápicos plasma fresco congelado (PFC) e concentrado de plaquetas (p<0,05), e imagem Ecodoppler (p<0,07).

CONCLUSÃO

Face aos resultados/propósito do estudo conclui-se que o indicador apresenta potencial capacidade preditiva no uso de recursos pós-operatórios de receptores de fígado nas dimensões, análises clínicas, imagens e hemoterapia.

Underutilization of Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Bias against MELD 20 and Higher

Background and Aims: Utilization of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and its relationship with recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) needs further evaluation in the United States (U.S.). We evaluated the association between recipient MELD score at the time of surgery and survival following LDLT. Methods: All U.S. adult LDLT recipients with MELD < 25 were evaluated using the 1995-2012 United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Survival following LDLT was stratified into three MELD categories (MELD < 15 vs. MELD 15-19 vs. MELD 20-24) and evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, 2,258 patients underwent LDLT. Compared to patients with MELD < 15, overall 5-year survival following LDLT was similar among patients with MELD 15-19 (80.9% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.77) and MELD 20-24 (81.2% vs. 80.3%, p = 0.73). When compared to patients with MELD < 15, there was no significant difference in long-term post-LDLT survival among those with MELD 15-19 (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45, p = 0.45) and a non-significant trend towards lower survival in patients with MELD 20-24 (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.91-1.81, p = 0.16). Only 14% of LDLTs were performed in patients with MELD 20-24 and the remaining 86% in patients with MELD < 20. Conclusion: LDLT is underutilized in patients with MELD 20 and higher.

Liver transplantation in Germany

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-accepted procedure for end-stage liver disease in Germany. In 2015, 1489 patients were admitted to the waiting list (including 1308 new admissions), with the leading etiologies being fibrosis and cirrhosis (n = 349), alcoholic liver disease (n = 302), and hepatobiliary malignancies (n = 220). Organ allocation in Germany is regulated within the Eurotransplant system based on urgency as expressed by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. In 2015, only 894 LTs (n = 48 from living donors) were performed at 23 German transplant centers, reflecting a shortage of organs. Several factors may contribute to the low number of organ donations. The German transplant legislation only accepts donation after brain death (not cardiac death), whereas advances in neurosurgery and a more frequently requested "palliative care" approach render fewer patients suitable as potential donors. The legislation further requires the active consent of the donor or first-degree relatives before donation. Ongoing debates within the German transplant field address the optimal management of patients with alcoholic liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and cholangiocarcinoma and measures to increase living donor transplantations. As a result of irregularities at mainly 4 German transplant centers that were exposed in 2012, guiding principles updated by the German authorities have since implemented strict rules (including internal and external auditing, the 8-eyes principle, mandatory repeated testing for alcohol consumption) to prohibit any manipulations in organ allocation. In conclusion, we will summarize important aspects on the management of LT in Germany, discuss legal and organizational aspects, and highlight challenges mainly related to the relative lack of organ donations, increasing numbers of extended criteria donors, and the peculiarities of the recipient patients. Liver Transplantation 22 1136-1142 2016 AASLD.

Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies

In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.

DCD liver transplant infection: experience from a single centre in China

AIM

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the incidence, timing, location and risk factors for bacterial and fungal infections after donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplant and clearly delineate any relationship between infection and survival in DCD liver transplant recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 257 consecutive patients undergoing DCD liver transplant between October 2010 and May 2015 at our centre.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients (51.8%) developed at least one bacterial or fungal infection episode. The predominant infection site was the respiratory tract, followed by the blood stream. Most of the infections occurred within the first week after liver transplant (61.9%). A recipient respiratory support time greater than 7 days (p = 0.041), post-transplant hospital time greater than 24 days (p = 0.002) and renal failure after DCD liver transplant (p = 0.039) were independent predictors of bacterial and fungal infection. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of the transplant infection risk assessment model was 0.788. The 1- and 3-year survival rates for recipients without infection were significantly increased compared with recipients with infection (96.1% and 89.0% vs. 81.5% and 75.9%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that offers detailed data revealing the timing and incidence of bacterial and fungal infection among adult DCD liver transplant recipients. Bacterial and fungal infection occurs at a high rate during the first week after DCD liver transplant, especially in patients with prolonged respiratory support time and renal failure, and infection is related to increased hospital stay.

Selection and Postoperative Care of the Living Donor

Live organ donors typically consult their primary care providers when considering live donation and then return for follow-up after surgery and for ongoing primary care. Live liver and kidney transplants are performed routinely as a method to shorten the waiting time for a recipient, provide a healthy organ for transplant, and increase recipient survival. Careful medical and psychosocial evaluation of the potential donor is imperative to minimize harm. This evaluation must be performed by an experienced live donor medical team. Routine health care with careful attention to weight maintenance, cardiovascular health, and prevention of diabetes and hypertension is paramount.

Living donor liver transplantation in the USA

Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) accounts for a small volume of the transplants in the USA. Due to the current liver allocation system based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), LDLT has a unique role in providing life-saving transplantation for patients with low MELD scores and significant complications from portal hypertension, as well as select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Donor safety is paramount and has been a topic of much discussion in the transplant community as well as the general media. The donor risk appears to be low overall, with a favorable long-term quality of life. The latest trend has been a gradual shift from right-lobe grafts to left-lobe grafts to reduce donor risk, provided that the left lobe can provide adequate liver volume for the recipient.

Longterm health-related quality of life after living liver donation

There are little data on longterm outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and issues related to living donor right hepatectomy specifically. We studied longterm HRQoL in 127 living liver donors. A donor-specific survey (DSS) was used to evaluate the living liver donor morbidity, and the 36-item short-form health survey (short-form 36 health survey, version 1 [SF-36]) was used to assess generic outcomes. The DSS was completed by 107 (84.3%) donors and the SF-36 by 62 (49%) donors. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. Of the 107 donors, 12 (11.2%) donors reported their health as better, whereas 84 (78.5%) reported their health the same as before donation. Ninety-seven (90.7%) are currently employed. The most common postdonation symptom was incisional discomfort (34%). Twenty-four donors (22.4%) self-reported depression symptoms after donation. Ninety-eight (91.6%) rated their satisfaction with the donation process ≥ 8 (scale of 1-10). Three factors-increased vitality (correlation, 0.44), decreased pain (correlation, 0.34), and a recipient who was living (correlation, 0.44)-were independently related to satisfaction with the donor experience. Vitality showed the strongest association with satisfaction with the donor experience. Mental and physical component summary scale scores for donors were statistically higher compared to the US population norm (P < 0.001). Donors reported a high satisfaction rate with the donation process, and almost all donors (n = 104, 97.2%) would donate again independent of experiencing complications. Our study suggests that over a longterm period, liver donors continue to have above average HRQoL compared to the general population.

An update on liver transplantation: A critical review

Liver transplantation, although now a routine procedure, with defined indications and usually excellent outcomes, still has challenges. Donor shortage remains a key issue. Transplanted organs are not free of risk and may transmit cancer, infection, metabolic or autoimmune disease. Approaches to the donor shortage include use of organs from donors after circulatory death, from living donors and from those previously infected with Hepatitis B and C and even HIV for selected recipients. Normothermic regional and/or machine perfusion, whether static or pulsatile, normo- or hypothermic, are being explored and will be likely to have a major place in improving donation rates and outcomes. The main indications for liver replacement are alcoholic liver disease, HCV, non-alcoholic liver disease and liver cancer. Recent studies have shown that selected patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis may also benefit from liver transplant. The advent of new and highly effective treatments for HCV, whether given before or after transplant will have a major impact on outcomes. The role of transplantation for those with liver cell cancer continues to evolve as other interventions become more effective. Immunosuppression is usually required life-long and adherence remains a challenge, especially in adolescents. Immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors (primarily tacrolimus), antimetabolites (azathioprine or mycophenolate) and corticosteroids remains standard. Outcomes after transplantation are good but not normal in quality or quantity. Premature death may be due to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, de novo cancer, recurrent disease or late technical problems.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Optimizing informed consent in living liver donors: Evaluation of a comprehension assessment tool

Adult-to-adult living liver donation is associated with considerable risks with no direct medical benefit to liver donors (LDs). Ensuring that potential LDs comprehend the risks of donation is essential to medically and ethically justify the procedure. We developed and prospectively evaluated the initial psychometrics of an "Evaluation of Donor Informed Consent Tool" (EDICT) designed to assess LDs' comprehension about the living donation process. EDICT includes 49 true/false/unsure items related to LD informed consent. Consecutive LDs undergoing evaluation at 1 academic medical center from October 2012 to September 2014 were eligible for participation in pretest/posttest interviews. Medical records were reviewed for postdonation complications. Twenty-seven LDs participated (96% participation rate). EDICT demonstrated good internal consistency reliability at pretest, 2 days before donating (Cronbach's α = 0.78), and posttest, 1 week after donating (α = 0.70). EDICT scores significantly increased over time (P = 0.01) and demonstrated good test-retest reliability (r = 0.68; P < 0.001). EDICT was associated with race/ethnicity (P = 0.02) and relationship to the recipient (P = 0.01; pretest), and income (P = 0.01) and insurance (P = 0.01; posttest), but not with decisional conflict, preoperative preparedness, satisfaction, or decisional regret (pretest and posttest). Donor complications did not impact postdonation EDICT scores. In conclusion, EDICT has promising measurement properties and may be useful in the evaluation of informed consent for potential LDs.

Quality of Life After Living Donor Hepatectomy for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) involves healthy individuals undergoing voluntary major hepatic resection. LDLT program only started in 2012 in Pakistan and its impact on donor's quality of life (QOL) post resection is not known. The objective of this study was to determine health-related QOL in donors who underwent hepatectomy in country's first liver transplant program.

METHODS

A total of 60 donors who underwent hepatectomy between 2012 and 2014 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in the study. Short form (SF-36) and Profile of mood states (POMS-65) was used to assess QOL. In addition scores were compared between patients who did and did not develop complications.

RESULT

Mean time duration between hepatectomy and administration of questionnaire was 15 ± 5.1 months. Median age was 28 (19-45) years. Mean BMI was 24.4 ± 3.7. A total of 7 (11.6%) Grade 3 and above complications were observed in donors. Donors exceeded a score of 90 in 6 out of 8 evaluated categories on SF-36. The highest mean score was recorded for emotional role limitation 95.5 ± 17.1 and lowest for energy 84.8 ± 17.5. The mean score for anger was 6.6 ± 7.5. Donors also did well on the POMS vigor score with a mean of 22.7 ± 5. No significant difference in scores was observed between donors with and without complications for any of the categories except tension. Donors who developed complications post-operatively had a significantly low mean tension score of 1.5 versus 3.8 for donors without complications.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable post donation QOL was achieved and surgical complications did not adversely affect SF-36 and POMS scores.

The Psychosocial and Independent Living Donor Advocate Evaluation and Post-surgery Care of Living Donors

Solid organ transplantation as a treatment for end stage organ failure has been an accepted treatment option for decades. Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, the gap between supply and demand continues to widen. Living donation has been an option that has increased the number of transplants despite the continued shortage of deceased organs. In the early 2000s live donor transplantation reached an all-time high in the United States. As a result, a consensus meeting was convened in 2000 to increase the oversight of living donor transplantation. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the United Network for Organ Sharing developed regulations that transplant programs performing live donor transplantation. These regulations and guidelines involve the education, evaluation, informed consent process and living donor follow-up care. Two areas in which had significant changes included the psychosocial and the independent living donor advocate (ILDA) evaluation. The purpose of this paper was to outline the current regulations and guidelines associated with the psychosocial and ILDA evaluation as well as provide further recommendations for the administration of a high quality evaluation of living donors. The goals and timing of the evaluation and education of donors; qualifications of the health care providers performing the evaluation; components of the evaluation; education provided to donors; documentation of the evaluation; participation in the selection committee meeting; post-decline and post-donation care of donors is described. Caveats including the paired donor exchange programs and non-directed and directed donation are also considered.

A review of life quality in living donors after liver transplantation

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has increasingly performed all around the world. However, LDLT donors achieve no medical benefits and are exposed to the risk of complications, and even death. The potential effects of LDLT on donor safety, donor recovery, and post-donation psychological impairment are essential to be better understood. We searched the MEDLINE database to identify articles about the quality of life (QOL) in adults after LDLT donation. Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1944 donors were included in the review. 14 of the 28 studies (50%) had a cross-sectional design, and the remaining half had a prospective design. The Physical Component Score (PCS) decreased immediately after the donation, then returned to the baseline within 6 to 12 months while the Mental Component Score (MCS) remains comparable to that of normative population throughout the procedure. Compared with the left graft (LG) donors, right graft (RG) donors were significantly older, had longer hospital stays and higher rates of postoperative complications, and a higher recipient mortality rate, while there were no difference in the PCS and MCS between the two groups. Our review clearly indicates that the LDLT donors can endure the donation procedure and return to their normal daily life without major problem in the short term. However, to improve the donor selection criteria and ensure the QOL in donors throughout donation procedure, more studies with longer follow up and larger samples are essential and predictors of poor QOL should be identified in study with sufficient response rate and ideal control groups.