Living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is based on the principle of double equipoise. Organ shortage in Asian countries has led to development of high-volume LDLT programs with good outcomes. Safety of live liver donor is the Achilles heel of LDLT program and every effort should be made to achieve low morbidity and near zero mortality rates.

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively maintained donor morbidity data (outcomes) of 177 donors in a new transplant program setup in western India by an experienced surgeon. The primary end point was to analyze the morbidity rates and the factors associated with it.

None of the donors in our cohort of 177 donors developed grade IV or V complication (Clavien-Dindo classification). One-fourth (1/4th) of the donors developed complications ranging from grade I to grade III(b). The rate of complications according to modified Clavien-Dindo classification is as follows: (1) grade I in 5.6% (n = 10), (2) grade II in 14.6% (n = 26), (3) grade III(a) in 3.9% (n = 7), (4) grade III(b) in 2.2% (n = 4). Three donors (1.6%) developed post-hepatectomy intra-abdominal bleeding and required re-exploration (grade IIIb). All of them recovered well post-surgery and are doing well in follow-up. The mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 2871 ± 521 days (range 1926-3736 days).

Donor safety (outcome) is determined by meticulous donor surgery and good-quality remnant.

The extension of liver transplantation to new oncologic indications might exacerbate the shortage of grafts. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) may emerge as a viable resource, although its diffusion in the Western world is still very limited. Several groups have advocated for minimizing the impact on donors by reducing the extent of donor hepatectomy, i.e., shifting from right-lobe to left-lobe or left-lateral segment donation ("shift-to-left"). This is particularly relevant when dealing with non-established indications and could make it more acceptable both for potential donors and for the recipients. Left grafts can be transplanted straightforward, despite a higher risk of small-for-size syndrome, or they can be used in the setting of dual-graft LDLT or RAPID procedures, despite technical complexity. This review will expose the most relevant features of each technique, highlighting their strengths and pitfalls and focusing on outcomes. This wide set of tools should be available at high-volume transplant centers, to propose the best technique to adapt to donor-recipient matching.

Living liver donation (LLD) has been suggested as a potential solution to reduce the waitlist mortality for liver transplantation (LT) recipients by facilitating living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring both donor and recipient safety is a critical aspect of LDLT. An accurate understanding of the complexity and extend of safety outcomes of the donor is imperative to maintain the high-quality standard this medical program requires. This review seeks to outline safety outcome parameters of interest for donors. Early postoperative mortality is very low with no significant differences comparing left lobe to right lobe LLD. Complications most commonly are biliary (leakage or strictures), bleeding, respiratory or pulmonary, gastrointestinal or infectious. Return to full-time work and quality of life are essential parameters in the mid and long term. As evidence continues to accumulate, outcomes may evolve with the expansion of minimal invasive surgery practice and currently laparoscopic approach is recommended in large experienced centers. By offering safer operations that require fewer incisions or liver resections, living liver donations can be further encouraged, and the perception of the procedure can be improved. Rational consideration of the safety of the donor and in-depth discussion and evaluation with the patient is of utmost importance.

The shortage of deceased liver donor organs over the years has always posed the need to expand the donor pool. A viable alternative to deceased donors is that of the living donor. Indeed, the living donor in liver transplantation, initially in pediatric transplantation, but for several years now also in adult transplantation, is a more than viable alternative to deceased liver donation. In fact, right liver lobe donation has proven to be a surgical procedure with low impact on the donor's life in terms of morbidity and mortality, with excellent results in recipients of such organs. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been published that show excellent results in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation, encouraging this practice not only in countries that have historically had a shortage of deceased donor organs, such as Asian countries, but making it a practice of increasing use in Western countries as well. In addition, thanks to improvements in surgical technique and the experience of high-volume centers, this surgery has also begun to be performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques, allowing us to envision ever better outcomes for both donor and recipient in the coming years.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) has seen great advancements since its inception in 1988. Herein, the nuances of LDLT are discussed spanning from donor evaluation to the recipient operation. Special attention is given to donor anatomy and graft optimization techniques in the recipient.

This study investigated the volumetric remodeling of the left liver after right hepatectomy looking for factors predicting the degree of hypertrophy and severe post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).

In a cohort of 121 right hepatectomies, we performed CT volumetrics study of the future left liver remnant (FLR) preoperatively and postoperatively. Factors influencing FLR degree of hypertrophy and severe PHLF were identified by multivariate analysis.

After right hepatectomy, the mean degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate of the left liver remnant were 25% and 3%/day respectively. The mean liver volume recovery rate was 77%. Liver remodeling volume was distributed for 79% on segments 2 and 3 and 21% on the segment 4 (p<0.001). Women showed a greater hypertrophy of segments 2 and 3 compared with men (p=0.002). The degree of hypertrophy of segment 4 was lower in case of middle hepatic vein resection (p=0.004). Left liver remnant kinetic growth rate was associated with the standardized future liver remnant (sFLR) (p<0.001) and a two-stage hepatectomy (p=0.023). Severe PHLF were predicted by intraoperative transfusion (p=0.009), biliary tumors (p=0.013), and male gender (p=0.022).

Volumetric remodeling of the left liver after right hepatectomy is not uniform and is mainly influenced by gender and sacrifice of middle hepatic vein. Male gender, intraoperative transfusion, and biliary tumors increase the risk of postoperative liver failure after right hepatectomy.

Living liver donors need help to manage symptom distress and improve their quality of life. This study aims to test the effectiveness of a web-based symptom self-care instruction on symptom experience and health-related quality of life of living liver donors.

This study was a randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited from January 2019 to August 2020. Participants in the experimental group had access to a web-based symptom self-care instruction, which included text and video. The control group received routine care. The primary outcomes were symptom distress and quality of life.

A total of 90 living liver donors recruited in this study were assigned randomly to the web group (n = 46) and control group (n = 44). The symptom distress was significantly negatively correlated with quality of life at each data collection time. There was an interaction effect with the participants in the web group experiencing more symptom distress at three months after surgery than the control group (B = 3.616, 95% CI: 7.163-3.990, p = 0.046). There was no significant effect on the quality of life.

Patients in the web-based self-care group had higher symptom distress than those in the control group three months after surgery, but there was no difference in quality of life. Future studies could add some interactive elements to the website and include a larger sample size.

This study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900020518).

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur.

In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier.

Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs.

Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an established treatment for advanced liver disease. Whether right lobe (RL) or left lobe (LL) LDLT provides the best outcomes for donors and recipients remains contentious.

MedLine, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central were searched to identify studies comparing RL- and LL-LDLT and reporting donor and/or recipient outcomes. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity.

Sixty-seven studies were included. RL donors were more likely to experience major complications (relative risk [RR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-2.05; I2 = 19%) than LL donors; however, no difference was observed in the risk of any biliary complication (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 0.91-2.20; I2 = 59%), bile leaks (RR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.97-2.51; I2 = 52%), biliary strictures (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.43-1.88; I2 = 27%), or postoperative death (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.25-1.05; I2 = 0%). Among recipients, the incidence of major complications (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.68-1.06; I2 = 21%), biliary complications (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.91-1.33; I2 = 8%), and vascular complications (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.44-1.43; I2 = 0%) was similar. Although the rate of small for size syndrome (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; I2 = 0%) and postoperative deaths (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%) was lower among RL-LDLT recipients, no differences were observed in long-term graft (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.55-1.38; I2 = 74%) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.60-1.22; I2 = 44%).

LL donors experience fewer complications than RL donors, and LL-LDLT recipients had similar outcomes to RL-LDLT recipients. These findings suggest that LL-LDLT offers the best outcomes for living donors and similar outcomes for recipients when measures are taken to prevent small for size syndrome.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers an opportunity to decrease the liver transplant waitlist and reduce waitlist mortality. We sought to compare donor and recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes after LDLT in the US, the UK, and Canada.

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort-study of adults (≥18-years) who underwent primary LDLT between Jan-2008 and Dec-2018 from three national liver transplantation registries: United Network for Organ Sharing (US), National Health Service Blood and Transplantation (UK), and the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (Canada). Patients undergoing retransplantation or multi-organ transplantation were excluded. Post-transplant survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable adjustments were performed using Cox proportional-hazards models with mixed-effect modeling.

A total of 2,954 living donor liver transplants were performed (US: n = 2,328; Canada: n = 529; UK: n = 97). Canada has maintained the highest proportion of LDLT utilization over time (proportion of LDLT in 2008 - US: 3.3%; Canada: 19.5%; UK: 1.7%; p <0.001 - in 2018 - US: 5.0%; Canada: 13.6%; UK: 0.4%; p <0.001). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient survival was 92.6%, 82.8%, and 70.0% in the US vs. 96.1%, 89.9%, and 82.2% in Canada vs. 91.4%, 85.4%, and 66.7% in the UK. After adjustment for characteristics of donors, recipients, transplant year, and treating transplant center as a random effect, all countries had a non-statistically significantly different mortality hazard post-LDLT (Ref US: Canada hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.05; UK hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.02, p = 0.78).

The use of LDLT has remained low in the US, the UK and Canada. Despite this, long-term survival is excellent. Continued efforts to increase LDLT utilization in these countries may be warranted due to the growing waitlist and differences in allocation that may disadvantage patients currently awaiting liver transplantation.

This multicenter international comparative analysis of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada demonstrates that despite low use of the procedure, the long-term outcomes are excellent. In addition, the mortality risk is not statistically significantly different between the evaluated countries. However, the incidence and risk of retransplantation differs between the countries, being the highest in the United Kingdom and lowest in the United States.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Living donor liver transplantation was first developed to mitigate the limited access to deceased donor organs in Asia in the 1990s. This alternative liver transplantation method has become a widely practiced and established transplantation option for adult patients suffering with end-stage liver disease, and it has successfully helped address the shortage of deceased donors. The Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia and the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists jointly reviewed published studies on the perioperative management of adult live liver donors undergoing donor hemi-hepatectomy. The goal of the review is to offer transplant anesthesiologists and critical care physicians a comprehensive overview of the perioperative management of adult live donors. We featured the current status, donor selection process, outcomes and complications, surgical procedure, anesthetic management, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols, avoidance of blood transfusion, and considerations for emergency donation. Recent surgical advances, including laparoscopic donor hemi-hepatectomy and robotic laparoscopic donor surgery, are also addressed.

Given the complexity of living donor hepatectomy, it is expected that high hospital volume will better outcomes. This study aims to evaluate post-operative outcomes for living donor hepatectomy in a medium volume liver transplant centre and compare to outcomes in high volume centres. Also, it serves as a validation tool for framework of structure-process-outcome model for safe living donor hepatectomy program.

204 donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between June 1996 to September 2019 were reviewed retrospectively and compared to outcomes in high volume centres.

At 6 months, overall donor morbidity rate was 20/204 (9.8%). Wound complications were most common at 5/204 (2.5%). Majority of complications were either Clavien grade 1 or 2 and only 3 donors had Clavien grade 3 complications. There was zero donor mortality.

Our centre's donor morbidity rate of 9.8% is the one of the lowest reported in the published literature. With increased experience, stringent donor selection and enhanced perioperative care by a multi-disciplinary team, outcomes in a medium volume centre can match the outcomes reported in high volume centres. The framework for quality in terms of structure, process and outcomes is presented which can be adopted for developing programs.

Living-donor liver transplant emerged as an alternative treatment for end stage liver disease due to the lack of cadaveric organs availability that met the demand. In Portugal, pediatric living-donor liver transplant (P-LDLT) was initiated in 2001 in Portugal in order to compensate for the scarcity of cadaveric organs for such cases. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the morbi-mortality of the 28 donors included in P-LDLT program performed at Coimbra's Pediatric Hospital (CHUC), a Portuguese reference center.

We retrospectively collected pertinent donor data and stratified complications according to Clavien's scoring system.

In total, 28.6% (n=8) of the donors had surgical complications. According to Clavien-Dindo's classification, two donors had major complications (Clavien grade ≥3), four donors had grade 2 complications, and two donors had grade 1 complications. There were no P-LDLT-related mortalities in the present case series. The most common verified complications were biliary tract injuries and superficial incisional infections, which are consistent with the complications reported in worldwide series.

These patients from CHUC shows that donor hepatectomy in P-LDLT is a safe procedure, with low morbidity and without mortality.

The main concern with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the risk to the donor. Given the potential risk of liver insufficiency, most centers will only accept candidates with future liver remnants (FLR) >30%. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of donors who underwent LDLT with FLR ≤30% and >30%.

Adults who underwent right hepatectomy for LDLT between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed. Remnant liver volumes were estimated using hepatic volumetry. To adjust for between-group differences, donors with FLR ≤30% and >30% were matched 1:2 based on baseline characteristics. Postoperative complications including liver dysfunction were compared between the groups.

A total of 604 live donors were identified, 28 (4.6%) of whom had a FLR ≤30%. Twenty-eight cases were successfully matched with 56 controls; the matched cohorts were mostly similar in terms of donor and graft characteristics. The calculated median FLR was 29.8 (range, 28.0-30.0) and 35.2 (range, 30.1-68.1) in each respective group. Median follow-up was 36.5 mo (interquartile range, 11.8-66.1). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. No difference was observed in overall complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 32.1% versus FLR >30%: 28.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-3.27) or major complication rates (FLR ≤30%: 14.3% versus FLR >30%: 14.3%; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.33-4.10). Posthepatectomy liver failure was rare, and no difference was observed (FLR ≤30%: 3.6% versus FLR >30%: 3.6%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.11-11.1).

A calculated FLR between 28% and 30% on its own should not represent a formal contraindication for live donation.

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.

Donor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach.

We randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach).

149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113).

PLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.

Although perioperative outcomes following donor hepatectomy (DH) have been reported, little is known about the long-term outcomes in living donors of liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes following DH.

A total of 408 living donors who underwent DH between 1996 and 2019 were analyzed in this retrospective study, focusing on short-term outcomes with respect to the operation period (era) and the graft type, as well as long-term outcomes.

The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 40.4%. These included minor (30.4%), major (10.0%), and biliary (14.0%) complications. Short-term outcomes after DH slightly improved over time, and outcomes did not differ significantly between the graft types. With regards to long-term outcomes, the incidence of surgery-related complications such as keloids, incisional hernias, and mechanical bowel obstructions was 6.6% over a median follow-up of 7.2 years. In addition, some donors developed comorbidities such as lifestyle diseases and cancers during the follow-up period.

Our study confirmed an improvement of perioperative outcomes in living donors. There was no significant association between the graft type and postoperative outcomes. Donors could develop various morbidities during long-term follow-up. Therefore, a careful perioperative management and long-term follow-up should be provided to living donors.

To assess the impact of living liver donation (LD) in a diverse and aging population up to 20 y after donation, particularly with regard to medical, financial, psychosocial, and overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Patients undergoing LD between 1999 and 2009 were recruited to respond to the Short-Form 36 and a novel Donor Quality of Life Survey at two time points (2010 and 2018).

Sixty-eight living liver donors (LLDs) completed validated surveys, with a mean follow-up of 11.5 ± 5.1 y. Per Donor Quality of Life Survey data, physical activity or strength was not impacted by LD in most patients. All respondents returned to school or employment, and 82.4% reported that LD had no impact on school or work performance. LD did not impact health insurability in 95.6% of donors, and only one patient experienced difficulty obtaining life insurance. Overall, 97.1% of respondents did not regret LD. Short-Form 36 survey-measured outcomes were similar between LLDs and the general U.S.

LLDs who responded in both 2010 and 2018 were followed for an overall average of 15.4 ± 2.4 y and HRQOL outcomes in these donors also remained statistically equivalent to U.S. population norms.

This study represents the longest postdonation follow-up and offers unique insight related to HRQOL in a highly diverse patient population. Although LLDs continue to maintain excellent HRQOL outcomes up to 20 y after donation, continued lifetime follow-up is required to accurately provide young, healthy potential donors with an accurate description of the risks that they may incur on aging.

Anonymous nondirected living liver donation (ANLLD), sometimes referred to as "altruistic" donation, occurs when a biologically unrelated person comes forward to donate a portion of his/her liver to a transplant candidate who is unknown to the donor. Here, we explore the current status of ANLLD with special consideration of published reports; US experience; impact on donor psychosocial outcomes; barriers to donation; and current global trends with respect to ethical considerations. Between 1998 and 2019, 105 anonymous nondirected living liver donor (ND-LLD) transplants have been documented in the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Sixteen donors (15%) were reported to experience a postoperative complication. Currently, 89 donors remain alive (85%), 16 (15%) have unknown status, and none are confirmed deceased. Although there are only a handful of case series, these data suggest that ANLLD is a feasible option. While there are no liver-specific data, studies involving anonymous nondirected kidney donors suggest that anonymous donation does not adversely impact psychosocial outcomes in donors or recipients. There are substantial financial burdens and ethical considerations related to ANLLD. Further studies are required to assess donor demographics, psychosocial motivations, long-term health-related quality of life, and financial impact of ANLLD.

As experience grows, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become an effective treatment option to overcome the deceased donor organ shortage.

Donor safety is the highest priority in LDLT. Strict donor selection according to structured protocols and center experience are the main factors that determine donor safety. However, with increased experience, many centers have explored increasing organ availability within living donation by means of ABO incompatible LDLT, dual graft LDLT, and anonymous living donation. Also, this growing experience in LDLT has allowed the transplant community to cautiously explore the role of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma outside of Milan criteria and patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

LDLT has become established as a viable strategy to ameliorate the organ shortage experienced by centers around the world. Improved understanding of this technique has allowed the improved utilization of live donor graft resources, without compromising donor safety. Moreover, LDLT may offer some advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and a unique opportunity to assess the broader applicability of liver transplantation.

Pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (PLDRH) has been performed in many experienced centers. However, portal vein variations still remain challenging thus disturbing the widespread of PLDRH in many centers. PLDRH when integrated with 3-dimensional laparoscopy and indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography is safe and feasible.

We reviewed 19 donors with separated right anterior and right posterior portal veins who underwent living donor right hemihepatectomy between January 2014 and December 2016. We compared the clinical outcomes of PLDRH and conventional open right hemihepatectomy (CDRH).

6 donors (31.6%) underwent PLDRH while 13 donors (68.4%) underwent CDRH. There was no intraoperative complications, transfusions and open conversions in the PLDRH donors. The total operative time was longer in PLDRH (356.5 vs. 244.5 minutes, p=0.003). However, the length of hospital stay (8.5 vs. 9.0 days, p=0.703), blood loss (450.0 vs. 393.6 ml, p=0.557) and complication rate (16.6% vs.27.3%; p=0.327) did not differ between the two groups.

PLDRH is safe and feasible in donors with type II and III portal vein variations. Further prospective comparative studies are needed to prove the safety and efficacy of PLDRH.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved rapidly in Asia with good outcomes for both donor and recipient. Nonetheless, LDLT remains a highly demanding technique and complex surgery. The potential risks to the donors provide the basis for many of the ethical dilemmas associated with LDLT. The transplant team must have a good knowledge of the principles of bioethics in order to handle these matters. To look after the need, donor's safety and the chance for good recipient outcomes, the principles of respect for the donor's autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be practiced. In accordance with the concept of equipoise, the risk to the donor must balance the benefit to the recipient. The transplant center should have adequate experience and proven expertise in LDLT. There are concerns regarding the validity of informed consent given by the donor. While donations to non-relative patients may, at first sight, indicate radical altruism, it is important to apply careful scrutiny. Though organ trading is strictly prohibited by the law, there seems to be an inherent risk with directed donations to strangers. Transplant tourism has flourished in some countries in spite of the existence of strict laws. There are reservations regarding transplantation done by foreign visiting teams. Donor websites facilitating patients and donors and Facebook pages bear no responsibility for the outcomes of their matches and cannot ensure sufficient and accurate information about donation, transplantation, and post-operation life. Telemedicine and virtual consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and the patient know and trust each other.