SR Bramhall, E Minford, B Gunson and JAC Buckels  The Liver Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
Correspondence to: SR Bramhall, Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK. S.R.Bramhall@bham.ac.uk
Telephone: 0121 627 2276, Fax: 0121 472 1230
Received: 2001-05-15 Accepted: 2001-06-15

Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This paper provides a review of the practice of liver transplantation with the main emphasis on UK practice and indications for transplantation. Referral and Assessment:  This section reviews the process of referral and assessment of patients with liver disease with reference to UK practice. Donor Organs: The practice of brainstem death and cadaveric organ donation is peculiar to individual countries and rates of donation and potential areas of improvement are addressed. Operative Technique: The technical innovations that have led to liver transp lantation becoming a semi-elective procedure are reviewed. Specific emphasis is made to the role of liver reduction and splitting and living related liver transplantation and how this impacts on UK practice are reviewed. The complications of liver transplantation are also reviewed with reference to our own unit. Immunosuppression: The evolution of immunosuppression and its impact on liver transplantation are reviewed with some reference to future protocols. Retransplantation: The role of retransplantation is reviewed. Outcome and Survival: The results of liver transplantation are reviewed with specific emphasis on our own experience. Future: The future of liver transplantation is addressed. 

Subject headings: liver transplantation; review; Great Britain; human

Bramhall SR, Minford E, Gunson B, Buckels JAC. Liver transplant ation in the UK. World J Gastroenterol, 2001;7(5):602-611

INTRODUCTION
Recent years have seen dramatic changes in the practice of liver transplantation . In 1980 in Europe fewer than 30 liver grafts were performed compared to over 3000 in 1995 (Figure 1). During this period liver transplantation has evolved from a rare procedure in patients with end-stage liver disease, to a semi-elective operation with current predictable success rates of approximately 90% in patients with chronic disease. In the early period of liver transplantation it was reserved for patients with end stage chronic liver disease or unresectable primary liver malignancy, but in recent years there has been a considerable broadening of the accepted indications. Improving results have led to liver transplantation becoming a semi-elective procedure with both quantity and quality of life being of major concern.  Patients who may not be in immediate risk of death from liver decompensation but have significantly impaired quality of life are now considered as candidates.

Figure 1(PDF) Evolution of european liver transplantation.

      The current indications can be classified into four broad groups; chronic liver failure, acute liver failure, primary hepatic malignancy not treatable by conven tional resection and inborn errors of metabolism due to a liver based enzyme defect but without parenchymal liver disease (Table 1).
      Chronic liver failure is the most common indication for liver replacement and can be caused by a wide variety of diseases including autoimmune, viral, congeni tal and alcohol induced liver disease. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is the commonest indication for liver transplantation in the UK. Several studies on survival in PBC have led to the development of a prognostic index that is helpful in planning the timing of liver replacement^[1]. Primary sclero sing cholangitis (PSC) is a condition that is usually found in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Progression of PSC is less predictable than PBC but approximately 30% of patients with PSC will develop cholangiocarcinoma that is usually incurable at diagnosis. Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is less common than PBC and PSC but immunosuppressive therapy can delay progression. Excess immunosuppression prior to transplantation however, may increase the morbidity and mortality associated with liver replacement and the optimal timing of liver replacement is a finely balanced decision.
      An estimated 300 million people worldwide carry the hepatitis B virus (HBV).  In Western Europe and North America the carrier rate is low (0.5%) and is mainly confined to high-risk groups including intravenous drug users, homosexua ls and immigrants from high prevalence areas. HBV is a significant problem howe ver, because of the risks of early recurrence after liver replacement. Patients who are HBV-DNA positive at time of transplant develop rapid recurrence with e arly death. The results of trials of antiviral therapy using agents such as lami vudine and HBV specific immunoglobulins prior to transplantation suggest that vi ral replication can be suppressed prior to and post liver replacement with encou raging early results^[2-5]. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an increasing pu blic health problem. Most patients seen in the UK have become infected following  transfusion of blood products or from intravenous drug abuse. The development of cirrhosis following HCV infection is slow but with a significant risk of subsequent hepatocellular carcinoma development^[6]. Recurrence of HCV after transplantation is common but not usually problematic in the early years^[7,8]. The evolving strategies for anti-viral therapy in this grou p of patients are likely to have a significant impact on survival in this group of patients^[9-11].
      Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is the commonest cause of cirrhosis in many parts of the western world although during the evolution of liver transplantation very  few cases were accepted. Many transplant physicians were initially reluctant to consider liver replacement in these patients because of the risks of returning to alcohol and public attitudes^[12].  The alcoholic who can prove absti nence prior to grafting has an equivalent survival to those transplanted for other chronic liver disease and recidivism is surprisingly uncommon^[13]. There has therefore been an increasing pressure to accept reformed alcoholics and an increasing proportion are now being grafted^[14].
      The commonest cause of chronic liver failure in children is biliary atresia. If diagnosed early and treated surgically with a portoenterostomy (Kasai operati on), the progression of liver disease is delayed and up to 40% of children will survive long term^[15]. Many children however, will develop end stage liver disease and die within the first few years of life if not transplanted .  Failure to thrive is a common sequelae of chronic liver disease in children and should be considered an indication for grafting.
      The development of hepatic encephalopathy within eight weeks of onset of symptom s in a patient without previous liver disease is defined as acute fulminant hepa tic failure (AFHF)^[16].  Sub-acute or late onset hepatic failure has al so been recognised with encephalopathy developing between eight weeks and six mo nths of onset of symptoms. The commonest causes of AFHF in the UK include drugs and toxins^[17-20], viral hepatitis (Hepatitis A, B, and non-A non-B) ^[21,22] and miscellaneous causes including Wilson's disease, fatty liver of pregnancy and Budd-Chiari syndrome^[23-26]. Specific prognostic factors for spontaneous recovery from AFHF have been published and are helpful in decision making about transplantation^[27].
      An increasing number of inborn errors of metabolism with a deficiency of a singl e hepatic enzyme are being treated by liver transplantation, even though the liv er is otherwise structurally and functionally normal  (Table 1).  Timing is impo rtant and transplantation should be performed before irretrievable damage is don e to other organs e.g. renal failure in primary oxalosis or cerebral damage in Crigler-Najjar syndrome^[28,29].
      Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the commonest primary liver malignancy and although it is rare in the UK it is one of the commonest cancers worldwide^[30]. The majority of cases occur in the background of liver cirrhosis with the presence of HCV and HBV being additional risk factors (Figure 2). It has been recommended that transplantation be restricted to patients with HCC who have lesions up to 3cm and up to three in number^[31-33]. There are other rare unresectable hepatic tumours that are occasionally conside red for transplantation. These include epithelioid haemangioendothelioma, sarcomata, cholangiocarcinoma and secondary neuroendocrine tumours^[34-36]. Hilar cholangiocarcinomas almost invariably recur early after grafting and are no longer considered appropriate candidates^[37].

Figure 2(PDF) CT Scan showing HCC in cirrhotic liver with ascites and splenomegaly.

Table 1 Common indications for liver transplantation

REFERRAL AND ASSESSMENT
In patients with acute or chronic liver failure timely referral is necessary if a successful outcome is to be achieved^[38-40]. Many patients with chro nic liver disease can remain stable for long periods and decompensation may occu r secondary to a complication such as variceal bleeding, portal vein thrombosis, development of hepatic malignancy or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. The ab ility to intervene before any major deterioration is dependent on the recognitio n of early indicators of disease progression; in cholestatic conditions (PBC and PSC) the level of bilirubin is an obvious indicator of the underlying diseas e severity and is likely to lead to an early referral for specialist opinion but for many liver conditions the appearance of jaundice is a late feature and other signs of a deterioration in liver synthetic function, such as a falling albumin or rising prothrombin time are a better indicator of the need for referral.
      A multi-disciplinary team including hepatologists and transplant surgeons usually assess patients in the UK.  A careful review is required to determine the diagnosis of the liver disease and this will include a specialist pathologist at the transplant centre reporting on the liver histology. Often patients who drink moderate amounts of alcohol are labelled as having alcoholic liver disease but an open mind for these cases is encouraged because modest alcohol intake may unmask an underlying liver condition such as alpha-1 anti-trypsin deficiency or haemochromatosis^[41,42].
      Assessment for transplantation includes both physical fitness for major surgery as well as psychological evaluation and counselling. A detailed evaluation of the cardio-respiratory system is often indicated and this may require ECG, echocardiogram, exercise ECG, coronary angiography and pulmonary artery catheter isation in those with evidence of ischaemic heart disease, pulmonary hypertension or suspected major pulmonary shunts as seen in the hepatopulmonary syndrome^[43].
      Technical considerations such as patency of the portal vein are also required an d this can be determined by Doppler ultrasound, angiography, spiral computerised  tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An absent portal vein is not a contraindication to transplantation if a patent superior mesenteric vein or large coronary vein can be identified which would be suitable for anastomosis  to the donor portal vein^[44]. Patients with primary HCC require detail ed investigation for evidence of disease outside the liver and this should include laparoscopy to detect peritoneal disease or transcapsular spread^[45], isotope bone scanning and computerised tomographic studies of the abdomen and chest. Difficulty may occur in patients with PSC in trying to differentiate between malignant and benign hilar strictures (Figure 3).  In our series malignancy was present in 25% of the patients with significant biliary dilatation but that pre-transplant diagnosis was difficult (unpublished data).

Figure 3(PDF) Cholangiogram showing dominant hilar stricture in a patient with PSC.

DONOR ORGANS
The number of liver transplants performed annually in the UK has remained largel y stable over the last five years and this has been despite a slight fall in the  number of cadaveric organ donors. The total number of liver transplants has bee n maintained in the UK by an increase in the number of split liver grafts perfor med and a wider use of more marginal liver donors. Over the last ten years the introduction of seatbelt laws and stricter drink driving legislation has reduced the number of cadaveric donors being derived from road traffic accident victims. Donor numbers have been largely maintained by utilising older donors who have u sually died from cerebro-vascular disease and have concomitant co-morbidity. The use of such marginal donors does not seem to have been at the expense of wor se outcomes. Successful outcome from liver transplantation is possible even in haemodynamically unstable donors and in those with abnormal liver function tests^[46].
      Assessment of the liver by an experienced transplant surgeon at time of retrieva l is a useful guide to subsequent function but if there is evidence of fatty cha nge, a frozen section histological assessment prior to implantation can be helpful^[47-49]. A fit recipient can often cope with a marginal graft but a poor recipient will need a graft which functions well immediately for the best chance for survival.
      Size matching of donor and recipient is attempted when selecting a patient for a particular liver. Attempting to place a large graft in a small recipient can cause major technical problems.  Patients with cholestatic diseases such as PSC and particularly PBC often have large livers and will accept grafts from significantly larger donors, as can patients with marked ascites.
      Approximately 60% of potentially suitable organ donors (approximately 1000 per year) are missed each year in the UK^[50]. UK organ donation rates remai n some of the lowest in Europe but a more aggressive approach to the identificat ion and confirmation of brainstem death and improved family requesting could achieve significant improvements in organ donation in the UK^[51]. A number of initiatives such as presumed donor consent and elective ventilation are currently being considered^[50].

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
Many factors can be identified which have contributed to the improved early outcome after liver replacement. Semi-elective daytime operating ensures that the s urgical and anaesthetic team produce the best technical results. The ability to store livers long enough to allow this came from the development of University of Wisconsin preservation fluid which allows satisfactory immediate graft function for storage periods of eighteen hours or more^[52].
      Meticulous attention to haemostasis has been aided by developments in surgical techniques and instruments (conventional diathermy, argon beam coagulator, fibrin glue, etc.). The monitoring of coagulation parameters in the operating room with the help of the thromboelastogram (TEG) means that blood coagulatio n is optimised and that predictable deteriorations in clotting which often occur on reperfusion can be anticipated and minimised^[53]. The role of anti-fibrinolytic agents such as aprotinin (Trasyslol) and human recombinant factors (Novoseven) remains unclear but are the subject of clinical study^[54,55].

Technical innovations
The INTRODUCTION of venovenous bypass for the anhepatic phase produced a signifi cant stabilisation of haemodynamic parameters during portal vein and caval clamp ing with a clear reduction in transfusion requirements and an improvement in ren al function^[56]. The alternative to venovenous bypass is to preserve th e vena cava at the time of hepatectomy and anastomose the back of the donor vena  cava to the front of the recipient cava (piggyback technique)^[57]. Several techniques have been described but the piggyback technique is not without its complications^[58-62]. Most units currently utilise a combination of techniques and a minority of units still perform liver replacement without either bypass or the piggyback technique.
      Early techniques of biliary reconstruction involved utilising the donor gall bla dder as a conduit between the donor and recipient duct. This technique has been abandoned because of the almost universal development of stones in the conduit. An end-to-end duct anastomosis is now the routine but this has been followed by stricture formation in up to 13% of cases^[63-65] and techniques of anastomosing the ducts obliquely with the ends spatulated or by utilising a side- to-side anastomosis are gaining wider acceptance ^[66,67].  The use of a T-tube has been abandoned by most units^[63-65,68].

Liver reduction and splitting
The shortfall in size matched grafts for small children led to the development o f reduced grafts in the mid 1980′s^[69-71]. The most commonly used techn ique is to transplant the left lateral lobe segments II and III with venous outflow based on the left hepatic vein which is anastomosed to the retained recipient vena cava^[72].  Weight ratios as high as ten-to-one between donor and recipient have been reported^[73] the ideal weight ratio howev er, is four, five or six to one. Reduced liver grafts are not without their comp lications^[74] but there appears to be a low incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis^[75,76]. The INTRODUCTION of this technique has led to a significant reduction in mortality from liver disea se in children^[77]. The techniques of graft reduction have led to the development of splitting livers where the left lobe (or left lateral segments) is transplanted into a paediatric recipient and the right lobe is grafted usuall y into an adult recipient (split-liver)^[78-80]. This technique was de veloped on the backbench following removal of the cadaveric donor organ. The pro cedure can take approximately two hours and during this time the donor organ is subject to some re -warming that might be detrimental to its initial function. Recently the techni que of in situ splitting of cadaveric donor organs has been developed as an extension of the development of living related liver transplantation. The advant age of this technique is that the splitting of the liver is performed during the  warm phase dissection prior to organ perfusion and cooling and the organ is the n not subject to re-warming during a subsequent splitting procedure. The result s of this technique appear to result in better initial graft function^[81-83].

Living related liver transplantation
In countries that do not have legal recognition of brainstem death and therefore  have no access to cadaveric organs, solid organ transplantation has been limite d to living related organ donation and this has led to the development of living related liver transplantation^[84]. The increasing donor organ shortfall  with the increasing number of potential recipients; despite the option of organ splitting, has meant that even in countries that do recognise brainstem death living related liver transplantation has had to be undertaken^[85-88]. The organ shortfall in the UK for patients with liver disease is less than in other countries and the number of units performing this procedure is small with only 12 being performed in 1999^[89,90]. The greatest experience with th is technique has been with adult-to-child left lateral lobe because of the obv ious size discrepancy and donor to recipient weight ratios^[91] but incr easing experience of the technique has led to the expansion of the technique to include adult-to-adult donation^[92-96]. The increasing demand for liver transplantation in the UK and the reduction in cadaveric donor organs ^[90]suggest that this technique is likely to become established practice but careful preoperative evaluation of the donor is needed^[97-100].

Complications
The one-year survival following liver transplantation has improved from approx imately 30% in the 1960s and 1970s to more than 80% in the 1990s^[14,101,102]. The immediate complications following liver transplantation include primary non -function, haemorrhage and acute renal failure.  The incidence of these is sign ificantly influenced by the quality of the donor liver and technical aspects of the transplant operation itself. Over the last 10 years in the UK there has been  an increase in the use of marginal organs^[46]but this has been offset by improvements in technical aspects of the surgical procedure, per-operative anaesthetic management and post-operative intensive care management. In our own unit the incidence of these complications between 1985 to 1989 and 1995 to 1999 was;primary non-function 1.9% and 1.7%, return to theatre for pack removal or haemorrhage 8.4% and 2.4% and post-operative renal failure 18.6% and 16.4% respectively (unpublished data). Despite the use of an increas ingly marginal donor pool the incidence of these complications hastherefore reduced.
      Primary non-function may be due to pre-existing but occult problems in the donor, poor retrieval or preservation, or injury caused by reperfusion (post-reperfusion syndrome). The clinical picture mimics acute fulminant hepatic failure and death rapidly follow unless urgent regrafting can be undertaken. Fortunately primary non-function is rare although primary dysfunction occurs in 5% to 10% of cases and is associated with a worse long-term outcome^[103,104].
      The majority of routine liver transplants require minimal or no transfused blood . In our own series 47% of liver transplants required four units or less of bloo d per-operatively (unpublished data). Patients with severe portal hypertension and previous major upper abdominal operations can pose a major surgical challeng e, meticulous haemostasis, venovenous bypass, warming of blood and blood product s and strict control of coagulation parameters will usually be effective.
      A significant number of transplant candidates already have impaired renal functi on and a combination of factors lead to a rise in the serum creatinine after sur gery^[105-107]. This will usually respond to optimisation of hydration and pharmacological manipulation but a proportion of patients will develop anuria and require renal replacement therapy at least in the short term^[108].
      Histological evidence of acute rejection can be documented in approximately 80% of liver grafts at the end of the first week but many of these do not require ad ditional immunosuppression if other parameters of graft function are improving^[109]. Histological evidence of severe cellular rejection and less severe histological forms associated with significant biochemical abnormalities (approximately 30% of liver grafts) are usually treated with high dose steroids^[110,111]. Steroid resistant rejection may respond to other agents including monoclonal (OKT3) and polyclonal antibodies (ATG) or by switching immunosuppression regimes^[112,113]. Chronic or irreversible rejection in the liver is a biliary rather than a vascul ar phenomenon in which the small bile radicals are destroyed^[114,115]. This can occur very early on after grafting and if progressive leads to loss of the graft although predicting which patients might require regrafting can be difficult^[116,117]. Chronic rejection accounts for approximately 5% of graft loss within the first three to five years following transplantation ^[118]. Lower rates of chronic rejection and graft salvage in early chronic rejection may occur with newer immunosuppressive regimes^[119-121].Histological examination of the transplanted liver in stable long-term patients often shows evidence of chronic post-transplant hepatitis^[122]. The causes of the histological changes are unknown although unrecognised viral infections may be responsible for some cases and the steroid sparing immunosuppression regimes may also be partly responsible.
      Serious cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections tend to be primary (transmitted by the donor liver) rather than reactivation infections and should be avoidable if CMV -matched donors are used. Clinical infection usually presents between four and eight weeks with fever and leucopenia but asymptomatic sero-conversion does not require treatment. This will respond well to a combination of reduction in base line immunosuppression and ganciclovir therapy^[123]. The traditional se rological tests vary between centres, take time and are less sensitive than PCR tests^[124]. In patients with symptoms specific to an organ histologi cal analysis should be used in conjunction with PCR tests^[125,126].Significant CMV infection is associated with acute rejection and may result in a worse long-term outcome^[127]. The routine use of prophylactic gancic lovir reduces the incidence of clinical CMV infection although a high index of suspicion and prompt treatment will also result in negligible mortality^[128-132].
      Biliary complications are a significant problem in most units undertaking liver transplantation and these include bile leaks, anastomotic strictures, non-anast omotic strictures of the donor bile duct and sludge formation. The overall inci dence in adults is approximately 10% but is higher in children^[74,133].  In our own series the overall incidence of biliary complications requiring inte rvention is 12%, this rises to 27% in those patients undergoing re-transplantation (unpublished data). The ability to image the biliary tree effectively using ultrasound, MRI cholangiography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiograp hy (ERCP) or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) has led to most bil iary complications being managed without reoperation^[134]. The presence of a major biliary disruption or an associated biliary obstruction is an indica tion for urgent biliary reconstruction^[135]. Biliary obstruction withou t leakage will usually be evident from simple ultrasound, can be confirmed by ERCP or PTC and can usually be managed without recourse to open surgery^{[13 6-138]}. Non-anastomotic biliary strictures involving the confluence or intra -hepatic bile ducts are a rare but serious compl ication that were once attributed to prolonged preservation times^[139]. These strictures are complicated but a proportion can be resolved using a PTC approach by a skilled radiologist although a number of cases will require regrafting. In any patient with a biliary complication patency of the hepatic artery should be confirmed, as hepatic artery thrombosis will cause ischaemia and necrosis of the biliary tree^[140]. The late biliary complications seen after transplantation are usually obstruction with possible secondary sepsis and cholangitis. The commonest cause is an anastomotic stricture, with or without stone or sludge formation in the proximal dilated biliary tree. An ERCP may enable duct clearance, dilatation of any stricture and stent insertion. Most strictures will recur and therefore formal biliary reconstruction is usually required.
      Hepatic arterial thrombosis (HAT) after liver transplantation occurs most freque ntly in the first postoperative month and leads to graft necrosis, intra-hepati c abscess or biliary necrosis and bile leakage.  In all suspected cases patency of the artery should be checked with Doppler ultrasound and confirmed with spira l CT or angiography^[141-143]. Per-cutaneous attempts at revascularizati on of stenosed or thrombosed hepatic arteries can be attempted and urgent thromb ectomy has been successful in some cases but the majority of cases of early HAT will need regrafting^[144-148]. Late arterial thrombosis may be occult an d if asymptomatic can probably be ignored. In our own series HAT has occurred in 4.6% of adult grafts and 9.1% of paediatric grafts (unpublished data). Technical problems account for the majority of cases but over transfusion at the time of surgery, producing a high a haematocrit, has been reported as a risk factor^[149,150].
      Malignancy is well recognised as a potential complication of long term immunosup pression. Longer survival is seen with the liver compared to other solid organ transplants and therefore the time exposed to the risk of malignancy is greater. The most common malignancies seen secondary to prolonged immunosuppression are the lymphoproliferative diseases and lymphoma and skin malignancy^{[151,1 52]}. Reduction in the level of immunosuppression is often enough to treat lymphoproliferative disease^[153]. A proportion of liver transplants are performed for primary hepatic malignancy and paradoxically the donor liver (free from malignancy at the time of transplant) is the commonest site of recurrence. The predilection for circulating malignant cells to return and then grow in the liver is well recognised.

IMMUNOSUPPRESSION
The widespread INTRODUCTION of cylosporine A in the early 1980s was responsible for the improvement in liver graft survival from 35% to 70% survival at one-year^[154]. Immunosuppression with cylosporine, azathioprine and steroids  remained the main immunosuppressive regimen until the development of tacrolimus  in 1989^[155]. Tacrolimus was initially used to salvage grafts failing from rejection on cylosporine based regimens^[156] but has subsequently been increasingly used as first line immunosuppression by many units. Although structurally different to cylosporine, it also acts by inhibiting calcineurin and subsequent interleukin (IL) 2 production and therefore prevents T cell proli feration^[157].  Three prospective randomised trials have compared the ef ficacy of tacrolimus and cylosporine in liver transplant recipients^{[158-160 ]}. The incidence of rejection was significantly lower with tacrolimus in all studies but there was no difference in one-year patient and graft survival. Long-term follow up has shown a trend towards en hanced survival in patients treated with tacrolimus^[161]. The toxicity profile of tacrolimus is similar to that of cylosporine  (nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, hypertension and diabetogenic potential) but without the gingival hyperplasia and hirsutism commonly seen with cylosporine^[162].
      Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is another new agent that blocks purine metabolism by inhibiting inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase in T and B lymphocytes^{[16 3]}.  The role of MMF in liver transplant recipients remains to be fully defined but initial reports suggest that when combined with tacrolimus the incidence of acute rejection is reduced^[164,165]. MMF has haematologica l and gastrointestinal side effects but is not nephrotoxic and may be useful in patients with compromised renal function so that the dose of tacrolimus can be reduced^[166]. New immunosuppressants continue to be developed and some are currently under eva luation including sirolimus (inhibits action of IL2), basiliximab (chimeric IL2 receptor monoclonal antibody) and daclizumab (humanised IL2 receptor monclonal antibody)^[167,168]. Polyclonal antibody therapy that has previously b een used to treat steroid resistant rejection has however, been rendered almost obsolete by current immunosuppressant protocols.In our own centre the current immunosuppression regimen is tacrolimus combined w ith azathioprine and prednisolone, with steroid taper and withdrawal over three months. MMF is used in place of azathioprine to allow low dose tacrolimus regime ns in those patients with renal impairment prior to transplantation and is also used in place of azathioprine in those patients undergoing retransplantation for chronic rejection. The available immunosuppressive options will continue to increase and with it the permutations of immunosuppressive regimens. This may make it difficult to effectively evaluate individual regimens. Immunosuppression will however, contin ue to be a balancing act, with over immunosuppression culminating in toxicity, life threatening infections and malignancy and under immunosuppression leading to rejection and graft loss.

RETRANSPLANTATION
In our own series 10% of nearly 2000 liver transplants were regrafts, although the proportion of patients requiring a regraft is decreasing^[169]. HAT accounts for 30% of regrafts, primary non-function for 16%, chronic rejecti on for 31% and recurrent disease for 6%, although the incidence of HAT and prima ry non-function is decreasing and the incidence of recurrent disease (PSC and HCV) is increasing^[169]. Early re-transplantation is technically straig htforward and usually performed for HAT or primary non-function. In an era of donor shortage and donor/recipient number mismatch the role of re-transplantation has been questioned but the outcome of re- transplantation is good with survival rates only slightly worse than those achieved for the first graft^[170].

SURVIVAL
One-year survival rates for elective liver transplant in patients with benign disease now exceed 90% in many centres, with predicted 10 year survival rates exp ected to exceed 70%^[102,171]. Patients transplanted for AFHF have a worse one-year survival with higher post-operative death rates usually related to  cerebral complications and multi-organ failure.  Experienced centres have howe ver, obtained one-year survival rates of approximately 70%^[172-174]. The long-term outcome for patients undergoing liver transplant for AFHF is as good as those transplanted for chronic disease. The increasing interest in living related transplantation offers a new opportunity for those patients with AFHF who cannot wait for a cadaveric organ^[175]. The outcome in childre n undergoing liver transplantation is equally good, even in high-risk groups such as children age under 1 year in whom donor organ shortage might prevent grafting at the optimal time^[75].
      Survival rates for patients grafted for primary liver cancer (HCC) are less good  however, patients transplanted for asymptomatic lesions up to 3cm in diam eter have survival rates close to those seen in patients grafted for benign dise ase^[32]. In our own unit overall survival (including fulminant hepatic failure) at one-year is 81% for adults and 86% for children with different long -term survival depending on disease type (Figure 4).

Figure 4(PDF) Survival following liver transplantation by disease type: birmingham series 1988-2000.

THE FUTURE
The most serious issue currently facing liver transplant physicians is the short fall in donor organs needed to meet demand.  This deficit is greater in the US t han in the UK.  If the UK could increase its rates of organ donation to levels s een in other European centres and split all livers that meet appropriate criteri a (approximately 25% of UK cadaveric organs) then current organ demand could be met. Patient demand will however, mean that increasingly transplant physicians will be asked to justify why certain categories of patient are not considered suitable for transplantation. The limited supply of cadaveric organs allows these physicians to justify transplantation criteria on the basis of the scarcity of this resource. The continued success of living related liver transplant programmes around the world is likely to lead to increasing pressure to relax the criteria for liver transplantation for those patients able to provide their ‘own’ source of suitable transplant organs. This will require st rict control and the application of new National guidelines if the UK is to avoid an expensive and potentially dangerous situation in the application of universal standards of care. A successful UK living related programme would certainly help to ease the deficit in u rgent organs for those with AFHF and could address the deficit that currently ex ists for liver transplantation in chronic liver disease but we believe that this  should only occur after the UK has exhausted the potential that is currently un tapped in potential cadaveric organs.
      The use of genetically modified xenografts could be potential major breakthrough  for organ recipients but is not easily applicable to liver failure patients and  there remain many biological and ethical obstacles before these organs become a sustainable source^[176].

REFERENCES
1    Hughes MD, Raskino CL, Pocock SJ, Biagini MR, Burroughs AK. Predictio n of short-term survival with an application in 
      primary biliary cirrhosis. Stat Med, 1992;11:1731-1745
2    Markowitz JS, Martin P, Conrad AJ, Markmann JF, Seu P, Yersiz H, Goss JA, Schmidt P, Pakrasi A, Artinian L, Murray NG,
      Imagawa DK, Holt C, Goldstein LI, S tribling R, Busuttil RW. Prophylaxis against hepatitis B recurrence following liver 
      transplantation using combination lamivudine and hepatitis B immune globulin . Hepatology, 1998;28:585-589
3    Mutimer D, Pillay D, Shields P, Cane P, Ratcliffe D, Martin B, Buchan S, Boxall L, O’Donnell K, Shaw J, Hubscher S, 
      Elias E. Outcome of lamivudine resi stant hepatitis B virus infection in the liver transplant recipient. Gut, 
      2000;46:107-113
4    Nery JR, Weppler D, Rodriguez M, Ruiz P, Schiff ER, Tzakis AG. Efficacy of  lamivudine in controlling hepatitis B virus 
      recurrence after liver transplantat ion. Transplantation, 1998;65:1615-1621
5    Perrillo R, Rakela J, Dienstag J, Levy G, Martin P, Wright T, Caldwell S, Schiff E, Gish R, Villeneuve JP, Farr G, 
      Anschuetz G, Crowther L, Brown N. Multi center study of lamivudine therapy for hepatitis B after liver transplantation.
      Lamivudine Transplant Group. Hepatology, 1999;29:1581-1586
6    Deuffic S, Poynard T, Valleron AJ. Correlation between hepatitis C virus p revalence and hepatocellular carcinoma 
      mortality in Europe. J Viral Hepat, 1999;6:411-413
7    Samuel D, Feray C. Recurrence of hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation. J Hepatol, 
      1999;31(Suppl 1):217-221
8    Testa G, Crippin JS, Netto GJ, Goldstein RM, Jennings LW, Brkic BS, Brooks  BK, Levy MF, Gonwa TA, Klintmalm GB. Liver
      transplantation for hepatitis C: rec urrence and disease progression in 300 patients. Liver Transpl, 2000;6:553-561
9    Lavezzo B, Rizzetto M. Treatment of recurrent hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation.
      J Hepatol, 1999;31(Suppl 1):222-226
10  Ben-Ari Z, Mor E, Shaharabani E, Bar-Nathan N, Shapira Z, Tur-Kaspa R. Combination of interferon-alpha and ribavirin 
      therapy for recurre nt hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc, 2000;32:714-716
11  Muramatsu S, Ku Y, Fukumoto T, Iwasaki T, Tominaga M, Kusunoki N, Yoon S, Kuroda Y. Successful rescue of severe 
      recurrent hepatitis C with interfe ron and ribavirin in a liver transplant patient. Transplantation, 2000;69:1956-1958
12  Walsh K, Alexander G. Alcoholic liver disease. Postgrad Med J, 2000;76:280-286
13  Pereira SP, Howard LM, Muiesan P, Rela M, Heaton N, Williams R. Qualit y of life after liver transplantation for alcoholic 
      liver disease. Liver Transpl, 2000;6:762-768
14  Hartley P, Petruckevitch A, Reeves B, Rolles K. The National Liver Transplantation Audit: an overview of patients 
      presenting for liver transplantat ion from 1994 to 1998. Br J Surg, 2001;88:52-58
15  Subramaniam R, Doig CM, Bowen J, Bruce J. Initial response to portoent erostomy determines long-term outcome in 
      patients with biliary atresia. J Pediatr Surg, 2000;35:593-597
16  Trey C, Davison CS. The management of fulminat hepatic failure. In: Popper H, Schaffner F, editors. Progress in Liver 
      Disease. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1970:282-298
17  Makin A, Williams R. The current management of paracetamol overdosage. Br J Clin Pract, 1994;48:144-148
18  Jones AL, Simpson KJ. Review article: mechanisms and management of hep atotoxicity in ecstasy (MDMA) and 
      amphetamine intoxications. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 1999;13:129-133
19  Neuberger JM. Halothane and hepatitis. Incidence, predisposing factors  and exposure guidelines. Drug Saf, 
      1990;5:28-38
20  Vasudeva R, Woods B. Isoniazid-related hepatitis. Dig Dis, 1997;15:357-367
21  Simmonds P, Davidson F, Lycett C, Prescott LE, MacDonald DM, Ellender J, Yap PL, Ludlam CA, Haydon GH, Gillon J, 
      Jarvis LM. Detection of a novel DNA virus (TTV) in blood donors and blood products. Lancet, 1998;352:191-195
22  Fagan EA, Harrison TJ. Exclusion in liver by polymerase chain reaction of hepatitis B and C viruses in acute liver failure 
      attributed to sporadic non-A, non-B hepatitis. J Hepatol, 1994;21:587-591
23  Smith SL, Ciferni M. Liver transplantation for acute hepatic failure: a review of clinical experience and management.
      Am J Crit Care, 1993;2:137-144
24  Lidofsky SD. Liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 1993;22:257-269
25  Kirsh BM, Lam N, Layden TJ, Wiley TE. Diagnosis and management of fulminant hepatic failure. Compr Ther, 
      1995;21:166-171
26  Detre K, Belle S, Beringer K, Daily OP. Liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure in the United States:
      October 1987 through December 1991. Clin Transplant, 1994;8(3 Pt 1):274-280
27  O’Grady JG, Alexander GJ, Hayllar KM, Williams R. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. 
      Gastroenterology, 1989;97:439-445
28  Nolkemper D, Kemper MJ, Burdelski M, Vaismann I, Rogiers X, Broelsch CE, Ganschow R, Muller-Wiefel DE. Long-term 
      results of pre-emptive liver tran splantation in primary hyperoxaluria type 1. Pediatr Transplant, 2000;4:177-181
29  Jansen PL. Diagnosis and management of Crigler-Najjar syndrome. Eur J Pediatr, 1999;158(Suppl 2):S89-S94
30  Taylor-Robinson SD, Foster GR, Arora S, Hargreaves S, Thomas HC. Increase in primary liver cancer in the UK, 1979-94 
      [letter]. Lancet, 1997;350:1142-1143
31  Ismail T, Angrisani L, Gunson BK, Hubscher SG, Buckels JA, Neuberger JM, Elias E, McMaster P. Primary hepatic 
      malignancy: the role of liver transplantation. Br J Surg, 1990;77:983-987
32  Bismuth H, Chiche L, Adam R, Castaing D, Diamond T, Dennison A. Liver resection versus transplantation for 
      hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. Ann Surg, 1993;218:145-151
33  Dalgic A, Mirza DF, Gunson BK, D’Silva M, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, McMa ster P. Role of total hepatectomy and 
      transplantation in hepatocellular carcinom a. Transplant Proc, 1994;26:3564-3565
34  Strong RW. Transplantation for liver and biliary cancer. Semin Surg Oncol, 2000;19:189-199
36  Clements D, Hubscher S, West R, Elias E, McMaster P. Epithelioid haema ngioendothelioma. A case report.
      J Hepatol, 1986;2:441-449
37  Meyer CG, Penn I, James L. Liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinom a: results in 207 patients.
      Transplantation, 2000;69:1633-1637
38  Donovan JP, Zetterman RK, Burnett DA, Sorrell MF. Preoperative evaluat ion, preparation, and timing of orthotopic liver
      transplantation in the adult. Semin Liver Dis, 1989;9:168-175
39  Rosen HR, Shackleton CR, Martin P. Indications for and timing of liver transplantation. Med Clin North Am, 
      1996;80:1069-1102
40  Jansen PL. New criteria for liver transplantation in adults: the combined Groningen and Rotterdam protocol.
      Neth J Med, 1998;52:53-57
41  Fletcher LM, Halliday JW, Powell LW. Interrelationships of alcohol and  iron in liver disease with particular reference 
      to the iron-binding proteins, ferritin and transferrin. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1999;14:202-214
42  George DK, Powell LW, Losowsky MS. The haemochromatosis gene: a co-factor for chronic liver diseases J 
      Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1999;14:745-749
43  Kuo P. Pulmonary hypertension: considerations in the liver transplant candidate. Transpl Int, 1996;9:141-150
44  Kirsch JP, Howard TK, Klintmalm GB, Husberg BS, Goldstein RM. Problema tic vascular reconstruction in liver 
      transplantation. Part Ⅱ. Portovenous conduits. Surgery, 1990;107:544-548
45  Dalgic A, Mirza DF, Gunson BK, Mutimer DJ, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, McMas ter P. Pretransplant investigations of primary 
      liver tumours with minimal access  surgery. Transplant Proc, 1994;26:3566-3567
46  Mirza DF, Gunson BK, Da Silva RF, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, McMaster P. Policies in Europe on “marginal quality” donor 
      livers. Lancet, 1994;344:1480-1483
47  Crowley H, Lewis WD, Gordon F, Jenkins R, Khettry U. Steatosis in donor and transplant liver biopsies.
      Hum Pathol, 2000;31:1209-1213
48  Urena MA, Moreno Gonzalez E, Romero CJ, Ruiz-Delgado FC, Moreno Sanz C. An approach to the rational use of 
      steatotic donor livers in liver transplant ation. Hepatogastroenterology, 1999;46:1164-1173
49  Yoong KF, Gunson BK, Neil DA, Mirza DF, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, McMaster P. Impact of donor liver microvesicular 
      steatosis on the outcome of liver retra nsplantation. Transplant Proc, 1999;31:550-551
50  BMA Medical Ethics Committee. Organ donation in the 21st century: tim e for a consolidated approach. London: BMA; 
      2000
51  Gore SM, Cable DJ, Holland AJ. Organ donation from intensive care unit s in England and Wales: two year confidential 
      audit of deaths in intensive care. BMJ, 1992;304:349-355
52  Padbury RT, Attard A, Mirza DF, Olliff S, Gunson BK, Mayer AD, Buckels JA, McMaster P. Extended preservation of the 
      liver with UW solution-is it justifiable Transplantation, 1994;57:1490-1493
53  Spiess BD, Tuman KJ, McCarthy RJ, DeLaria GA, Schillo R, Ivankovich AD . Thromboelastography as an indicator of
      post-cardiopulmonary bypass coagulopath ies. J Clin Monit, 1987;3:25-30
54  Garcia-Huete L, Domenech P, Sabate A, Martinez-Brotons F, Jaurrieta E, Figueras J. The prophylactic effect of aprotinin 
      on intraoperative bleeding i n liver transplantation: a randomized clinical study. Hepatology, 1997;26:1143-1148
55  Porte RJ, Molenaar IQ, Begliomini B, Groenland TH, Januszkiewicz A, Lindgren L, Palareti G, Hermans J, Terpstra OT. 
      Aprotinin and transfusion requir ements in orthotopic liver transplantation: a multicentre randomised double-blind study.
      EMSALT Study Group. Lancet, 2000;355:1303-1309
56  Shaw BW Jr, Martin DJ, Marquez JM, Kang YG, Bugbee AC Jr, Iwatsuki S, Griffith BP, Hardesty RL, Bahnson HT, 
      Starzl TE. Venous bypass in clinical liver transplantation. Ann Surg, 1984;200:524-534
57  Belghiti J, Panis Y, Sauvanet A, Gayet B, Fekete F. A new technique of side to side caval anastomosis during orthotopic 
      hepatic transplantation withou t inferior vena caval occlusion. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1992;175:270-272
58  Hesse UJ, Defreyne L, Pattyn P, Kerremans I, Berrevoet F, de Hemptinne B. Hepato-venous outflow complications 
      following orthotopic liver transplanta tion with various techniques for hepato-venous reconstruction in adults and 
      children. Transpl Int,1996;9(Suppl 1):S182-184
59  Lerut J, Gertsch P. Side-to-side cavo-cavostomy: a useful aid in “complicated” piggy-back liver transplantation. 
      Transpl Int, 1993;6:299-301
60  Meunier B, Bardaxoglou E, Chareton B, Landen S, Camus C, Roumeas J, Launois B. “Piggyback” method in hepatic
      transplantation. Chirurgie, 1993;119:682-685
61  Jovine E, Mazziotti A, Grazi GL, Ercolani G, Masetti M, Morganti M, Pierangeli F, Begliomini B, Mazzetti PG, Rossi R, 
      Paladini R, Cavallari A. Piggy-back versus conventional technique in liver transplantation: report of a randomized trial.
      Transpl Int, 1997;10:109-112
62  Lerut JP, Molle G, Donataccio M, De Kock M, Ciccarelli O, Laterre PF, Van Leeuw V, Bourlier P, de Ville de Goyet J, 
      Reding R, Gibbs P, Otte JB. Cavocaval liver transplantation without venovenous bypass and without temporary 
      portocaval shunting: the ideal technique for adult liver grafting Transpl Int, 1997;10:171-179
63  Verran DJ, Asfar SK, Ghent CN, Grant DR, Wall WJ. Biliary reconstructi on without T tubes or stents in liver 
      transplantation: report of 502 consecutive  cases. Liver Transpl Surg, 1997;3:365-373
64  Ben-Ari Z, Neville L, Davidson B, Rolles K, Burroughs AK. Infection r ates with and without T-tube splintage of common 
      bile duct anastomosis in liver  transplantation. Transpl Int, 1998;11:123-126
65  Rolles K, Dawson K, Novell R, Hayter B, Davidson B, Burroughs A. Bilia ry anastomosis after liver transplantation does 
      not benefit from T tube splintag e. Transplantation, 1994;57:402-404
66  Davidson BR, Rai R, Kurzawinski TR, Selves L, Farouk M, Dooley JS, Bur roughs AK, Rolles K. Prospective randomized 
      trial of end-to-end versus side-t o-side biliary reconstruction after orthotopic liver transplantation. Br J Surg,  
      1999;86:447-452
67  Keck H, Langrehr JM, Knoop M, Lohmann R, Bechstein WO, Blumhardt G, Neuhaus P. Reconstruction of bile duct using 
      the side-to-side anastomosis in 389 orthotopic liver transplantations. Transplant Proc, 1995;27:1250-1251
68  Vougas V, Rela M, Gane E, Muiesan P, Melendez HV, Williams R, Heaton ND. A prospective randomised trial of bile duct
      reconstruction at liver transpla ntation: T tube or no T tube Transpl Int, 1996;9:392-395
69  Buckels JA. Paediatric liver transplantation: review of current experi ence. J Inherit Metab Dis, 1991;14:596-603
70  Tan KC, Malcolm GP, Reece AS, Calne RY. Surgical anatomy of donor exte nded right trisegmentectomy before 
      orthotopic liver transplantation in children.  Br J Surg, 1991;78:805-808
71  Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlethwaite JR, Alonso EM, Broelsch CE. Reduced-size orthotopic liver transplantation: use 
      in the management of childre n with chronic liver disease. Hepatology, 1989;10:867-872
72  Strong R, Ong TH, Pillay P, Wall D, Balderson G, Lynch S. A new method  of segmental orthotopic liver transplantation 
      in children. Surgery, 1988;104:104-107
73  Srinivasan P, Vilca-Melendez H, Muiesan P, Prachalias A, Heaton ND, Rela M. Liver transplantation with monosegments. 
      Surgery, 1999;126:10-12
74  Chardot C, Candinas D, Mirza D, Gunson B, Davison S, Murphy MS, Kelly D, John P, McMaster P, Mayer D. Biliary 
      complications after paediatric liver transplantation: Birmingham’s experience. Transpl Int, 1995;8:133-140
75  Beath SV, Brook GD, Kelly DA, Cash AJ, McMaster P, Mayer AD, Buckels JA. Successful liver transplantation in babies 
      under 1 year. BMJ, 1993;307:825-828
76  Stevens LH, Emond JC, Piper JB, Heffron TG, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Whitington PF, Broelsch CE. Hepatic artery thrombosis 
      in infants. A comparison of whole livers, reduced-size grafts, and grafts from living-related donors. Transplantation, 
      1992;53:396-399
77  de Ville de Goyet J, Hausleithner V, Reding R, Lerut J, Janssen M, Otte JB. Impact of innovative techniques on the 
      waiting list and results in pediatric liver transplantation. Transplantation, 1993;56:1130-1136
78  Kazemier G, Hesselink EJ, Lange JF, Terpstra OT. Dividing the liver for the purpose of split grafting or living related 
      grafting: a search for the best cutting plane. Transplant Proc, 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1545-1546
79  Broelsch CE, Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlethwaite JR, Baker AL, Lichtor JL. Application of reduced-size liver 
      transplants as split grafts, auxi liary orthotopic grafts, and living related segmental transplants. Ann Surg,  
      1990;212:368-377
80  Mirza DF, Achilleos O, Pirenne J, Buckels JA, McMaster P, Mayer AD. Encouraging results of split-liver transplantation. 
      Br J Surg, 1998;85:494-497
81  Reyes J, Gerber D, Mazariegos GV, Casavilla A, Sindhi R, Bueno J, Mada riaga J, Fung JJ. Split-liver transplantation: a 
      comparison of ex vivo and in situ techniques. J Pediatr Surg, 2000;35:283-290
82  Goss JA, Yersiz H, Shackleton CR, Seu P, Smith CV, Markowitz JS, Farme r DG, Ghobrial RM, Markmann JF, 
      Arnaout WS, Imagawa DK, Colquhoun SD, FrAIMan MH, McDiarmid SV, Busuttil RW. In situ splitting of the cadaveric 
      liver for transplantation. Transplantation, 1997;64:871-877
83  Olausson M, Backman L, Friman S, Mjornstedt L, Krantz M, Broelsch CE, Rogiers X. In situ split liver procedures in 
      cadaver and living-related donors. Transplant Proc, 1997;29:3094-3095
84   Makuuchi M, Kawarazaki H, Iwanaka T, Kamada N, Takayama T, Kumon M. Living related liver transplantation. Surg 
      Today, 1992;22:297-300
85   Chen CL, Chen YS, Liu PP, Chiang YC, Cheng YF, Huang TL, Eng HL. Livin g related donor liver transplantation.
       J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1997;12:S342-345
86   Otte JB, Reding R, de Ville de Goyet J, Sokal E, Lerut J, Janssen M, Rosati R, Hayez JY, Libert F, Paul K, Latinne D. 
       Experience with living related liver transplantation in 63 children. Acta Gastroenterol Belg, 1999;62:355-362
87   Chen CL, Chen YS, Chiang YC, Cheng YF, Huang TL, Eng HL. Paediatric liver transplantation: a 10 year experience in 
       Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol , 1996;11:S1-3
88   Rogiers X, Broering DC, Mueller L, Burdelski M. Living-donor liver transplantation in children. Langenbecks Arch Surg,
       1999;384:528-535
89   UNOS. U.S. Facts About Transplantation. In: UNOS; 1999. Available from: URL: 
       http://www.unos.org/Newsroom/critdata main.htm.
90   UKTSSA. Transplant Update. In: UKTSSA; 2000. Available from: URL: http ://www.uktransplant.org.uk/b2a.asp.
91   Tanaka K, Uemoto S, Tokunaga Y, Fujita S, Sano K, Nishizawa T, Sawada H, Shirahase I, Kim HJ, Yamaoka Y. Surgical 
       techniques and innovations in living related liver transplantation. Ann Surg, 1993;217:82-91
92   Hashikura Y, Makuuchi M, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, Ikegami T, Nakazawa Y, Kiyosawa K, Ichida T. Successful 
       living-related partial liver transplantatio n to an adult patient [letter]. Lancet, 1994;343:1233-1234
93   Ichida T, Matsunami H, Kawasaki S, Makuuchi M, Harada T, Itoh S, Asaku ra H. Living related-donor liver transplantation 
       from adult to adult for prima ry biliary cirrhosis. Ann Intern Med, 1995;122:275-276
94   Kato T, Nery JR, Morcos JJ, Gyamfi AR, Ruiz P, Molina EG, Tzakis AG. Successful living related liver transplantation in 
       an adult with fulminant hepatic failure. Transplantation, 1997;64:415-417
95   Kawasaki S, Makuuchi M, Matsunami H, Hashikura Y, Ikegami T, Nakazawa Y, Chisuwa H, Terada M, Miyagawa S. Living 
       related liver transplantation in adul ts. Ann Surg, 1998;227:269-274
96   Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL. Technical refinement in adult-to-adult living  donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft. 
       Ann Surg, 2000;231:126-131
97   Morimoto T, Ichimiya M, Tanaka A, Ikai I, Yamamoto Y, Nakamura Y, Takada Y, Inomata Y, Honda K, Inamoto T, 
       Tanaka K, Yamaoka Y. Guidelines for donor selection and an overview of the donor operation in living related liver 
       transplantation. Transpl Int, 1996;9:208-213
98   Sterneck MR, Fischer L, Nischwitz U, Burdelski M, Kjer S, Latta A, Malago M, Petersen J, Pothmann W, Rogiers X. 
       Selection of the living liver donor. Transplantation, 1995;60:667-671
99   Renz JF, Mudge CL, Heyman MB, Tomlanovich S, Kingsford RP, Moore BJ, Snyder JD, Perr HA, Paschal AL, Roberts JP. 
       Donor selection limits use of living-related liver transplantation. Hepatology, 1995;22(4 Pt 1):1122-1126
100  Baker A, Dhawan A, Devlin J, Mieli-Vergani G, O'Grady J, Wil liams R, Rela M, Heaton N. Assessment of potential 
        donors for living related liv er transplantation. Br J Surg, 1999;86:200-205
101  Starzl TE, Porter KA, Putnam CW, Schroter GP, Halgrimson CG, Weil RD,  Hoelscher M, Reid HA. Orthotopic liver 
        transplantation in ninety-three patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1976;142:487-505
102  UKTSSA. One Year Survival By Centre. In: UKTSSA; 1985-1995. Available  from: URL:
        http;//www.uktransplant.org.uk/pdf/liver/30to31livaud.pdf.
103  Pokorny H, Gruenberger T, Soliman T, Rockenschaub S, Langle F, Steini nger R. Organ survival after primary 
        dysfunction of liver grafts in clinical ort hotopic liver transplantation. Transpl Int, 2000;13(Suppl 1):S154-157
104  Alvares-da-Silva MR, Waechter FL, Francisconi CF, Barros E, Thome F, Traiber C, Fonseca DL, Zingani JM, 
        Sampaio JA, Pinto RD, Pereira-Lima L. Risk factors for postoperative acute renal failure at a new orthotopic liver 
        transplantation program. Transplant Proc, 1999;31:3050-3052
106  Bilbao I, Charco R, Balsells J, Lazaro JL, Hidalgo E, Llopart L, Muri o E, Margarit C. Risk factors for acute renal failure 
        requiring dialysis after liver transplantation. Clin Transplant, 1998;12:123-129
107  Van Roey G, Moore K. The hepatorenal syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol, 1996;10:100-107
108  Fisher NC, Nightingale PG, Gunson BK, Lipkin GW, Neuberger JM. Chroni c renal failure following liver transplantation:
        a retrospective analysis. Transplantation, 1998;66:59-66
109  Dousset B, Hubscher SG, Padbury RT, Gunson BK, Buckels JA, Mayer AD, Elias E, McMaster P, Neuberger JM. Acute 
        liver allograft rejection-is treatment  always necessary Transplantation, 1993;55:529-534
110  Neuberger J. Incidence, timing, and risk factors for acute and chronic rejection. Liver Transpl Surg, 
        1999;5(4 Suppl 1):S30-36
111  Demetris A, Adams D, Bellamy C, Blakolmer K, Clouston A, Dhillon AP, Fung J, Gouw A, Gustafsson B, Haga H, 
        Harrison D, Hart J, Hubscher S, Jaffe R, Khettry U, Lassman C, Lewin K, Martinez O, Nakazawa Y, Neil D, Pappo O, 
        Parizhsk aya M, Randhawa P, Rasoul-Rockenschaub S, Reinholt F, Reynes M, Robert M, Tsam andas A, Wanless I, 
        Wiesner R, Wernerson A, Wrba F, Wyatt J, Yamabe H. Update of  the International Banff Schema for Liver Allograft 
        Rejection: working recommend ations for the histopathologic staging and reporting of chronic rejection. An 
        International Panel. Hepatology, 2000;31:792-799
112  Berard JL, Velez RL, Freeman RB, Tsunoda SM. A review of interleukin -2 receptor antagonists in solid organ 
        transplantation. Pharmacotherapy, 1999;19:1127-1137
113  Brusa P, Casullo R, Dosio F, Cattel L, Beltramini S, Chiappetta R, Tosetti L, Andorno E, Salizzoni M. OKT3 monitoring 
        in the treatment of steroid- resistant acute rejection of hepatotransplant recipients.Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet, 
        1998;23:301-306
114  Hubscher SG, Buckels JA, Elias E, McMaster P, Neuberger J. Vanishing bile-duct syndrome following liver 
        transplantation-is it reversible Transpla ntation, 1991;51:1004-1010
115  Neil DA, Adams DH, Gunson B, Hubscher SG. Is chronic rejection of liver transplants different from graft 
        arteriosclerosis of kidney and heart tran splants Transplant Proc, 1997;29:2539-2540
116  Lowes JR, Hubscher SG, Neuberger JM. Chronic rejection of the liver allograft. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 
        1993;22:401-420
117  Hubscher S. Diagnosis and grading of liver allograft rejection: a European perspective. Transplant Proc, 
        1996;28:504-507
118  Garcia RFL, Garcia CE, McMaster P. Chronic rejection of the liver: The role of immunosuppression. Bio Drugs, 
        2000;14:283-297
119  Fung JJ, Starzl TE. FK506 in solid organ transplantation. Ther Drug Monit, 1995;17:592-595
120  Mele TS, Halloran PF. The use of mycophenolate mofetil in transplant recipients. Immunopharmacology, 
        2000;47:215-245
121  Plosker GL, Foster RH. Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacolo gy and therapeutic use in the management of 
        organ transplantation. Drugs, 2000;59:323-389
122  Hubscher SG. Chronic hepatitis in liver allografts [letter]. Hepatology, 1990;12:1257-1258
123  Turgeon N, Fishman JA, Basgoz N, Tolkoff-Rubin NE, Doran M, Cosimi AB, Rubin RH. Effect of oral acyclovir or 
        ganciclovir therapy after preemptive intravenous ganciclovir therapy to prevent cytomegalovirus disease in 
        cytomegalovirus seropositive renal and liver transplant recipients receiving antilymphocyt e antibody therapy. 
        Transplantation, 1998;66:1780-1786
124  Evans PC, Soin A, Wreghitt TG, Alexander GJ. Qualitative and semiquan titative polymerase chain reaction testing for
       cytomegalovirus DNA in serum allo ws prediction of CMV related disease in liver transplant recipients. J Clin Pathol, 
        1998;51:914-921
125  Colina F, Juca NT, Moreno E, Ballestin C, Farina J, Nevado M, Lumbrer as C, Gomez-Sanz R. Histological diagnosis of 
        cytomegalovirus hepatitis in liver allografts. J Clin Pathol, 1995;48:351-357
126  Mutimer D. CMV infection of transplant recipients. J Hepatol, 1996;25:259-269
127  Rosen HR, Corless CL, Rabkin J, Chou S. Association of cytomegaloviru s genotype with graft rejection after liver 
        transplantation. Transplantation, 1998;66:1627-1631
128  Winston DJ. Prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in transplant recip ients [comments]. Lancet, 1995;346:1380-1381
129  Winston DJ, Wirin D, Shaked A, Busuttil RW. Randomised comparison of ganciclovir and high-dose acyclovir for 
        long-term cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in liver-transplant recipients. Lancet, 1995;346:69-74
130  Gane E, Saliba F, Valdecasas GJ, O'Grady J, Pescovitz MD, Lyman S, Robinson CA. Randomised trial of efficacy and 
        safety of oral ganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver-transplant recipients. The Oral 
        Ganciclovir International Transplantation Study Group. Lancet, 1997;350:1729-1733
131  Umana JP, Mutimer DJ, Shaw JC, McLeish PJ, Buchan A, Martin B, Neuber ger JM, Elias E, McMaster P. 
        Cytomegalovirus surveillance following liver transp lantation: does it allow presymptomatic diagnosis of 
        cytomegalovirus disease Transplant Proc, 1992;24:2643-2645
132  Gavalda J, de Otero J, Murio E, Vargas V, Rossello J, Calico I, Marga rit C, Pahissa A. Two grams daily of oral acyclovir 
        reduces the incidence of cytomegalovirus disease in CMV-seropositive liver transplant recipients. Transpl Int, 
        1997;10:462-465
133  Bhatnagar V, Dhawan A, Chaer H, Muiesan P, Rela M, Mowat AP, Williams R, Tan KC, Heaton ND. The incidence and
        management of biliary complications following liver transplantation in children. Transpl Int, 1995;8:388-391
134  Keogan MT, McDermott VG, Price SK, Low VH, Baillie J. The role of ima ging in the diagnosis and management of 
        biliary  complications after liver transp lantation. Am J Roentgenol, 1999;173:215-219
135  Davidson BR, Rai R, Nandy A, Doctor N, Burroughs A, Rolles K. Results of choledochojejunostomy in the treatment of 
        biliary complications after liver transplantation in the era of nonsurgical therapies. Liver Transpl, 2000;6:201-206
136  Rizk RS, McVicar JP, Emond MJ, Rohrmann CA Jr, Kowdley KV, Perkins J, Carithers RL Jr, Kimmey MB. Endoscopic 
        management of biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients: effect on patient and graft survival. Gastrointest Endosc,
        1998;47:128-135
137  Saab S, Martin P, Soliman GY, Machicado GA, Roth BE, Kunder G, Han SH, Farmer DG, Ghobrial RM, Busuttil RW, 
        Bedford RA. Endoscopic management of biliary leaks after T-tube removal in liver transplant recipients: nasobiliary 
        drainage versus biliary stenting. Liver Transpl, 2000;6:627-632
138  Johnston TD, Gates R, Reddy KS, Nickl NJ, Ranjan D. Nonoperative mana gement of bile leaks following liver 
        transplantation. Clin Transplant, 2000;14(4 Pt 2):365-369
139  Feller RB, Waugh RC, Selby WS, Dolan PM, Sheil AG, McCaughan GW. Bili ary strictures after liver transplantation: 
        clinical picture, correlates and out comes. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1996;11:21-25
140  Margarit C, Hidalgo E, Lazaro JL, Murio E, Charco R, Balsells J. Bili ary complications secondary to late hepatic artery 
        thrombosis in adult liver transplant patients. Transpl Int, 1998;11(Suppl 1):S251-254
141  Nolten A, Sproat IA. Hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplant ation: temporal accuracy of diagnosis with duplex 
        US and the syndrome of impendi ng thrombosis. Radiology, 1996;198:553-559
142  Hellinger A, Roll C, Stracke A, Erhard J, Eigler FW. Impact of colour  Doppler sonography on detection of thrombosis 
        of the hepatic artery and the por tal vein after liver transplantation. Langenbecks Arch Chir, 1996;381:182-185
143  Legmann P, Costes V, Tudoret L, Girardot C, Hazebroucq V, Uzan E, Fery-Lemonnier E, Bonnin A. Hepatic artery 
        thrombosis after liver transplantati on: diagnosis with spiral CT. Am J Roentgenol, 1995;164:97-101
144  Sheiner PA, Varma CV, Guarrera JV, Cooper J, Garatti M, Emre S, Guy SR, Schwartz ME, Miller CM. Selective 
        revascularization of hepatic artery thromb oses after liver transplantation improves patient and graft survival. 
        Transplantation, 1997;64:1295-1299
145  Pinna AD, Smith CV, Furukawa H, Starzl TE, Fung JJ. Urgent revascular ization of liver allografts after early hepatic 
        artery thrombosis.Transplantation, 1996;62:1584-1587
146  Drazan K, Shaked A, Olthoff KM, Imagawa D, Jurim O, Kiai K, Shackelto n C, Busuttil R. Etiology and management of 
        symptomatic adult hepatic artery thr ombosis after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Am Surg, 1996;62:237-240
147  Orons PD, Zajko AB, Bron KM, Trecha GT, Selby RR, Fung JJ. Hepatic artery angioplasty after liver transplantation: 
        experience in 21 allografts. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 1995;6:523-529
148  Figueras J, Busquets J, Dominguez J, Sancho C, Casanovas-Taltavull T, Rafecas A, Fabregat J, Torras J, Jaurrieta E. 
        Intra-arterial thrombolysis in  the treatment of acute hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation. 
        Transplantation, 1995;59:1356-1357
149  Buckels JA, Tisone G, Gunson BK, McMaster P. Low haematocrit reduces hepatic artery thrombosis after liver 
        transplantation. Transplant Proc, 1989;21(1 Pt 2):2460-2461
150  Tisone G, Gunson BK, Buckels JA, McMaster P. Raised hematocrit-a con tributing factor to hepatic artery thrombosis 
        following liver transplantation. Transplantation, 1988;46:162-163
151  Glez-Chamorro A, Jimenez C, Moreno-Glez E, Glez-Pinto I, Loinaz C, Gomez R, Garcia I, Alonso O, Palma F, Grande C.
        Management and outcome of liver recipients with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. Hepatogastroent 
        erology, 2000;47:211-219
152  Hsi ED, Singleton TP, Swinnen L, Dunphy CH, Alkan S. Mucosa-associat ed lymphoid tissue-type lymphomas occurring 
        in post-transplantation patients. Am J Surg Pathol, 2000;24:100-106
153  Starzl TE, Nalesnik MA, Porter KA, Ho M, Iwatsuki S, Griffith BP, Ros enthal JT, Hakala TR, Shaw BW Jr, Hardesty RL. 
        Reversibility of lymphomas and lymphoproliferative lesions developing under cyclosporin-steroid therapy . Lancet, 
        1984;1:583-587
154  Iwatsuki S, Starzl TE, Todo S, Gordon RD, Esquivel CO, Tzakis AG, Mak owka L, Marsh JW, Koneru B, Stieber A. 
        Experience in 1000 liver transpla nts under cyclosporine-steroid therapy: a survival report. Transplant Proc, 
        1988;20(Suppl 1):498-504
155  Starzl TE, Todo S, Fung J, Demetris AJ, Venkataramman R, Jain A. FK 506 for liver, kidney, and pancreas 
        transplantation. Lancet, 1989;2:1000-1004
156  Demetris AJ, Fung JJ, Todo S, McCauley J, Jain A, Takaya S, Alessiani M, Abu-Elmagd K, Van Thiel DH, Starzl TE. FK 
        506 used as rescue therapy for human liver allograft recipients. Transplant Proc, 1991;23:3005-3006
157  Liu J, Farmer JD Jr., Lane WS, Friedman J, Weissman I, Schreiber SL.  Calcineurin is a common target of 
        cyclophilin-cyclosporin A and FKBP- FK506 complexes. Cell, 1991;66:807-815
158  Randomised trial comparing tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporin in prev ention of liver allograft rejection. European 
        FK506 Multicentre Liver Study Group. Lancet, 1994;344:423-428
159  A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppre ssion in liver transplantation. The U.S. 
        Multicenter FK506 Liver Study Group. N Engl J Med, 1994;331:1110-1115
160  Fung JJ, Eliasziw M, Todo S, Jain A, Demetris AJ, McMichael JP, Starz l TE, Meier P, Donner A. The Pittsburgh 
        randomized trial of tacrolimus compared to cyclosporine for hepatic transplantation. J Am Coll Surg, 
        1996;183:117-125
161  Wiesner RH. Long-term comparison of tacrolimus versus cyclosporine i n liver transplantation. The US FK Study Group.
        Transplant Proc, 1998;30:1399-1400
162  Van Buren D, Payne J, Geevarghese S, MacDonell R, Chapman W, Wright JK, Helderman JH, Richie R, Pinson CW. 
        Renal function in primary liver transplan t recipients receiving neoral (cyclosporine) versus prograf (tacrolimus).
        Transplant Proc, 1998;30:1401-1402
163  Allison AC, Almquist SJ, Muller CD, Eugui EM. In vitro immunosuppressive effects of mycophenolic acid and an ester 
        pro-drug, RS- 61443. Transplant Proc, 1991;23(2 Suppl 2):10-14
164  Klupp J, Glanemann M, Bechstein WO, Platz KP, Langrehr JM, Keck H, Settmacher U, Radtke C, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P.
        Mycophenolate mofetil in combinati on with tacrolimus versus Neoral after liver transplantation.Transplant Proc, 
        1999;31:1113-1114
165  Platz KP, Mueller AR, Neuhaus P. Indications for mycofenolate mofetil  therapy after liver transplantation. Transplant 
        Proc, 1997;29:2880-2881
166  Hebert MF, Ascher NL, Lake JR, Emond J, Nikolai B, Linna TJ, Roberts JP. Four-year follow-up of mycophenolate 
        mofetil for graft rescue in liver all ograft recipients. Transplantation, 1999;67:707-712
167  McAlister VC, Gao Z, Peltekian K, Domingues J, Mahalati K, MacDonald AS. Sirolimus-tacrolimus combination 
        immunosuppression [letter]. Lancet, 2000;355:376-377
168  Eckhoff DE, McGuire B, Sellers M, Contreras J, Frenette L, Young C, Hudson S, Bynon JS. The safety and efficacy of a 
        two-dose daclizumab (zenapax) induction therapy in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation, 2000;69:1867-1872
169  Yoong KF, Gunson BK, Buckels JA, McMaster P, Mayer AD. Repeat orthoto pic liver transplantation in the 1990s: is it 
        justified Transpl Int, 1998;11(Suppl 1):S221-223
170  Lerut J, Laterre PF, Roggen F, Mauel E, Gheerardyn R, Ciccarelli O, Donataccio M, de Ville de Goyet J, Reding R, 
        Goffette P, Geubel A, Otte JB. Adult hepatic retransplantation. UCL experience. Acta Gastroenterol Belg, 
        1999;62:261-266
171  UNOS. Graft and Patient Survival Rates at One, Three and Five Years. In: UNOS; 1999. Available from: URL: 
        http: //www.unos.org/data/anrpt99/ar99_table 06.htm.
172  Devlin J, Williams R. Transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure: comparing tacrolimus versus cyclosporine for 
        immunosuppression and the outcome in elective transplants. European FK506 Liver Study Group. Transplantation,  
        1996;62:1251-1255
173  Bismuth H, Samuel D, Castaing D, Adam R, Saliba F, Johann M, Azoulay D, Ducot B, Chiche L. Orthotopic liver 
        transplantation in fulminant and subfulmi nant hepatitis. The Paul Brousse experience. Ann Surg, 1995;222:109-119
174  Atillasoy E, Berk PD. Fulminant hepatic failure: pathophysiology, treatment, and survival. Annu Rev Med, 
        1995;46:181-191
175  Uemoto S, Inomata Y, Sakurai T, Egawa H, Fujita S, Kiuchi T, Hayashi M, Yasutomi M, Yamabe H, Tanaka K. Living 
        donor liver transplantation for fulmin ant hepatic failure. Transplantation, 2000;70:152-157
176  Wolf P. Xenotransplantation of the liver. Ann Transplant, 2000;5:53-54

Reviews	Add
more>>