Living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatitis C

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Historical evolution of transplantation criteria

Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma is still a hot topic, and the main factor that is associated with the success of treatment is to determine the patients who will benefit from LT. Milan criteria have been defined 25 years ago and still is being used for patient selection for LT. However, in living donor LT, the Milan criteria is being extended. Current criteria for patient selection do not only consider morphologic characteristics such as tumor size and number of tumor nodules but also biologic markers that show tumor aggressiveness is also being considered. In the present review article, we have summarized all the criteria and scoring systems regarding LT for hepatocellular carcinoma. All criteria have 5-year overall survival rates that were comparable to the Milan Criteria and ranged between 60%-85%. On the other hand, it was seen that the recurrence rates had increased as the Milan criteria were exceeded; the 5-year recurrence rates ranged between 4.9% to 39.9%. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma needs a multidisciplinary approach. Ideal selection criteria are yet to be discovered. The same is true for treatment modalities. The goal will be achieved by a harmonic interplay between basic science researchers and clinicians.

Post-liver transplant hepatitis C virus recurrence: an unresolved thorny problem

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis represents the leading cause of liver transplantation in developed, Western and Eastern countries. Unfortunately, liver transplantation does not cure recipient HCV infection: reinfection universally occurs and disease progression is faster after liver transplant. In this review we focus on what happens throughout the peri-transplant phase and in the first 6-12 mo after transplantation: during this crucial period a completely new balance between HCV, liver graft, the recipient's immune response and anti-rejection therapy is achieved that will deeply affect subsequent outcomes. Nearly all patients show an early graft reinfection, with HCV viremia reaching and exceeding pre-transplant levels; in this setting, histological assessment is essential to differentiate recurrent hepatitis C from acute or chronic rejection; however, differentiating the two patterns remains difficult. The host immune response (mainly cellular mediated) appears to be crucial both in the control of HCV infection and in the genesis of rejection, and it is also strongly influenced by immunosuppressive treatment. At present no clear immunosuppressive strategy could be strongly recommended in HCV-positive recipients to prevent HCV recurrence, even immunotherapy appears to be ineffective. Nonetheless it seems reasonable that episodes of rejection and over-immunosuppression are more likely to enhance the risk of HCV recurrence through immunological mechanisms. Both complete prevention of rejection and optimization of immunosuppression should represent the main goals towards reducing the rate of graft HCV reinfection. In conclusion, post-transplant HCV recurrence remains an unresolved, thorny problem because many factors remain obscure and need to be better determined.

Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus-positive recipients in Japan: results of a nationwide survey

A nationwide survey of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive recipients was performed in Japan. A total of 514 recipients are reported and included in the study. The cumulative patient survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 72% and 63%, respectively. Of the 514 recipients, 142 patients (28%) died until the end of the observation, among which the leading cause was recurrent hepatitis C (42 cases). According to Cox regression multivariate analysis, donor age (>40), non-right liver graft, acute rejection episode, and absence of a sustained virologic response were independent prognostic factors. Of the 514 recipients, 361 underwent antiviral treatment mainly with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (preemptive treatment in 150 patients and treatment for confirmed recurrent hepatitis in 211). The dose reduction rate and discontinuation rate were 40% and 42%, respectively, with a sustained virologic response rate of 43%. In conclusion, patient survival of HCV-positive recipients after LDLT was good, with a 10-year survival of 63%. Right liver graft might be preferable for HCV-positive recipients in an LDLT setting.

Living-donor liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompression. In areas with low deceased-donor organ availability like Japan, living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is similarly indicated for HCV cirrhosis as deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in Western countries and accepted as an established treatment for HCV-cirrhosis, and the results are equivalent to those of DDLT. To prevent graft failure due to recurrent hepatitis C, antiviral treatment with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. In contrast to DDLT, many Japanese LDLT centers have reported modified treatment regimens as best efforts to secure first graft, such as aggressive preemptive antiviral treatment, escalation of dosages, and elongation of treatment duration.

Living donor vs. deceased donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatitis C virus-related diseases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) provides a timely alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatitis C virus-related (HCV-related) diseases in the circumstances of severe organ dearth. However, the patient and graft outcomes, and recurrence of HCV after LDLT remain controversial. Here we sought to compare the post-transplant outcomes after LDLT and DDLT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database were searched for eligible literatures. The major end points were patient survival, graft survival, recurrence rate, and acute rejection. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects model to synthesize the results. Heterogeneity and publication bias were quantitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 2024 participants were included in this analysis. We found comparable patient survival between groups (1-year: OR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.48-1.26, p=0.31; 2-year: OR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.41-1.23, p=0.23; 3-year: OR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.5-1.12, p=0.18; 4-year: OR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.43-1.95, p=0.83; 5-year: OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.53-2.14, p=0.86, respectively). Although 1- and 3-year graft survivals were inferior in LDLT, 2-, 4- and 5-year graft survivals were similar. HCV recurrence rates and acute rejection rates were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT was equivalent to DDLT in terms of patient survival, long-term graft survival, HCV recurrence, and acute rejection rates, with potentially lower short-term patient and graft survival.

Living donor liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma related to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are currently the most common indications for liver transplantation. The number of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) procedures has increased given the shortage of donor organs from deceased donors. However, recurrence of HCV infection is universal and affects graft survival. This mini-review compared the outcomes for HCV-positive recipients after LDLT with those after deceased donor liver transplantation.

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Because of the severe organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers a timely alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the higher recurrence rate of HCC after LDLT and the indication criteria remain controversial. By conducting a quantitative meta-analysis, we sought to compare the survival outcomes and recurrence rates with LDLT and DDLT for patients with HCC. Comparative studies of LDLT and DDLT for HCC, which were identified by a comprehensive literature search, were included in this study. The evaluated outcomes included patient survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and recurrence rates at defined time points. Seven studies with a total of 1310 participants were included in this study. For LDLT and DDLT recipients, we found comparable patient survival rates [1 year, odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-1.73; 3 years, OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.77-1.48; and 5 years, OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.33-1.24] and RFS rates (1 year, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.54-1.38; 3 years, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.69-1.58; and 5 years, OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.70-1.77). Moreover, we found no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, or 5-year recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT recipients (1 year, OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.36-6.58; 3 years, OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 0.53-12.41; and 5 years, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.44-3.32). A subgroup analysis revealed similar outcomes for patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria. These findings demonstrate that for HCC patients (especially those within the Milan criteria), LDLT represents an acceptable option that does not compromise patient survival or increase HCC recurrence in comparison with DDLT.

Is there an advantage of living over deceased donation in liver transplantation?

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established strategy to decrease the mortality in the waiting list and recent studies have demonstrated its value even in patients with low MELD score. However, LDLT is still under a high level of scrutiny because of its technical complexity and ethical challenges as demonstrated by a decline in the number of procedures performed in the last decade in Western Countries. Many aspects make LDLT different from deceased donor liver transplantation, including timing of transplantation, procedure-related complications as well as immunological factors that may affect graft outcomes. Our review suggests that in selected cases, LDLT offers significant advantages over deceased donor liver transplantation and should be used more liberally.

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C

Hepatitis-C-virus- (HCV-) related end-stage cirrhosis is the primary indication for liver transplantation in many countries. Unfortunately, however, HCV is not eliminated by transplantation and graft reinfection is universal, resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and finally graft decompensation. The use of poor quality organs, particularly from older donors, has a highly negative impact on the severity of recurrence and patient/graft survival. Although immunosuppressive regimens have a considerable impact on the outcome, the optimal regimen after liver transplantation for HCV-infected patients remains unclear. Disease progression monitoring with protocol biopsy and new noninvasive methods is essential for predicting patient/graft outcome and starting antiviral treatment with the appropriate timing. Antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is currently considered the most promising regimen with a sustained viral response rate of around 30% to 35%, although the survival benefit of this regimen remains to be investigated. Living-donor liver transplantation is now widely accepted as an established treatment for HCV cirrhosis and the results are equivalent to those of deceased donor liver transplantation.

Longterm outcomes for whole and segmental liver grafts in adult and pediatric liver transplant recipients: a 10-year comparative analysis of 2,988 cases

BACKGROUND

Data on longterm outcomes after liver transplantation with partial grafts are limited. We compared 10-year outcomes for liver transplant patients who received whole grafts (WLT), split grafts from deceased donors (SLT), and partial grafts from living donors (LDLT).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a single-center analysis of 2,988 liver transplantations performed between August 1993 and May 2006 with median followup of 5 years. Graft types included 2,717 whole-liver, 181 split-liver, and 90 living-donor partial livers. Split-liver grafts included 109 left lateral and 72 extended right partial livers. Living-donor grafts included 49 left lateral and 41 right partial livers.

RESULTS

The 10-year patient survivals for WLT, SLT, and LDLT were 72%, 69%, and 83%, respectively (p=0.11), and those for graft survival were 62%, 55%, and 65%, respectively (p=0.088). There were differences in outcomes between adults and children when compared separately by graft types. In adults, 10-year patient survival was significantly lower for split extended right liver graft compared with adult whole liver and living-donor right liver graft (57% versus 72% versus 75%, respectively, p=0.03). Graft survival for adults was similar for all graft types. Retransplantation, recipient age older than 60 years, donor age older than 45 years, split extended right liver graft, and cold ischemia time>10 hours were predictors of diminished patient survival outcomes. In children, the 10-year patient and graft survivals were similar for all graft types.

CONCLUSIONS

Longterm graft survival rates in both adults and children for segmental grafts from deceased and living donors are comparable with those in whole organ liver transplantation. In adults, patient survival was lower for split compared with whole grafts when used in retransplantations and in critically ill recipients. Split graft-to-recipient matching is crucial for optimal organ allocation and best use of a scarce and precious resource.

Corticosteroid-free immunosuppression with daclizumab in HCV(+) liver transplant recipients: 1-year interim results of the HCV-3 study

This work is a 1-yr interim analysis of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial evaluating the effect of corticosteroid-free immunosuppression on hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV(+)) liver transplant recipients following liver transplantation (LT). Patients received tacrolimus and corticosteroids (Arm 1; n = 80); tacrolimus, corticosteroids, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arm 2; n = 79); or daclizumab induction, tacrolimus, and MMF (Arm 3; n = 153). At 1 yr, 64.1%, 63.4%, and 69.4% of patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of freedom from rejection, freedom from HCV recurrence, and freedom from treatment failure, respectively. Excellent patient and graft survival did not differ significantly among treatment arms. Freedom from HCV recurrence at 1 yr was 61.8 +/- 6.2%, 60.1 +/- 6.1%, and 67.0 +/- 4.3% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P = not significant). Freedom from rejection was significantly higher in Arm 3 compared to Arm 1 (93.0 +/- 2.2% vs. 81.9 +/- 4.4%; P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified acute rejection (hazard ratio = 2.692; P = 0.001) and donor age (hazard ratio = 1.015; P = 0.001) as significant risk factors for HCV recurrence. HCV recurrence was not influenced by recipient demographics, HCV genotype, or immunosuppression. In conclusion, these results suggest that a corticosteroid-free regimen of tacrolimus and MMF following daclizumab induction is safe and effective in HCV(+) liver transplant recipients.

Predictors of graft and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients: model to predict HCV cirrhosis after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) is almost universal, but the natural history of recurrent HCV in the allograft is highly variable. Our study had two aims: 1) to assess the impact of different pre- and postLT factors on graft and patient survival in HCV transplant recipients and 2) to create a model which may predict the patients at risk for HCV-related graft cirrhosis at 5 years postLT.

METHODS

A total of 168 LTs were considered for this study. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used, as well as logistic regression analysis to create a model of prediction of HCV cirrhosis within 5 years after LT.

RESULTS

Predictive factors for both decreased graft and patient survival included patients recently transplanted (2000-2004), induction without azathioprine, short-term therapy with mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone (< or =6 months), presence of early cholestasis, histologically proven early recurrence of hepatitis C. Recipient human leukocyte antigen DR3 positivity, presence of early cholestasis, and donor age >50 years were identified as independent predictors of graft cirrhosis within 5 years. A predictive model was established in order to calculate at 6 months a risk score for graft HCV cirrhosis within 5 years postLT using a formula that included the identified independent predictors. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83, indicating a good ability to predict medium-term HCV allograft cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

This model may be a useful tool for better identifying high-risk HCV patients who should be selected for early initiation of antiviral therapy.

Therapeutic management of recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplantation

Recurrent hepatitis C ranges from minimal damage to cirrhosis developing in a few months or years in a substantial proportion of transplant recipients. Different virus, host and donor factors are involved in the pathogenesis of recurrence, but many are poorly understood. Therapeutic strategies can be utilized in the pre-, peri- or posttransplantation setting. Antiviral therapy using interferon and ribavirin and modifying immunosuppression are the main strategies to prevent progression disease. The efficacy of interferon and ribavirin is limited and side effects, reduction/withdrawal are frequent. Current sustained virological response rates are approximately 28%. An optimal immunosuppression regimen has not been established. The choice of calcineurin inhibitors has not clearly been shown to affect histological hepatitis C virus (HCV) but higher cumulative exposure to corticosteroids to treat acute rejection is associated with more severe recurrence. The manner in which the doses of immunosuppression are modified has more influence on HCV recurrence than the use of a specific drug per se. Debate about the influence of immunosuppressive regimens on HCV recurrence is ongoing. Potential antifibrotic therapy and new agents targeting HCV infection and replication are emerging and are anticipated to be added to our armentarium in battling recurrent HCV post-LT.

Live donor liver transplantation in adults

Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was initiated in 1988 for children recipients. Its application to adult recipients was limited by graft size until the first right liver LDLT was performed in Hong Kong in 1996. Since then, right liver graft has become the major graft type. Despite rapid adoption of LDLT by many centers, many controversies on donor selection, indications, techniques, and ethics exist. With the recent known 11 donor deaths around the world, transplant surgeons are even more cautious than the past in the evaluation and selection of donors. The need for routine liver biopsy in donor evaluation is arguable but more and more centers opt for a policy of liberal liver biopsy. Donation of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in the right liver graft was considered unsafe but now data indicate that the outcome of donors with or without MHV donation is about equal. Right liver LDLT has been shown to improve the overall survival rate of patients with chronic liver disease, acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation. The outcome of LDLT is equivalent to deceased donor liver transplantation despite a smaller graft size and higher technical complexity.

Liver transplantation from an identical twin without immunosuppression, with early recurrence of hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus reinfection after liver transplantation is universal and more severe than in nontransplant patients. Rejection episodes and immunosuppressive agents are considered risk factors for deterioration of recurrent hepatitis C. We report 2 cases of living donor liver transplantation for patients with hepatitis C-related cirrhosis who received right-lobe grafts from an identical twin. Thanks to genetic identity, no immunosuppressive drugs were administered during or after transplantation without rejection. Hepatitis C virus RNA kinetics showed a rapid increase following transplantation and liver biopsies 1 month after transplantation showed acute lobular hepatitis in both cases. Antiviral therapy using interferon alpha and ribavirin was started immediately, and both cases showed virological and histological response. In conclusion, avoidance of immunosuppression did not delay hepatitis C recurrence following transplantation, while early antiviral therapy without risk of rejection or immunosuppression led to successful viral eradication.

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the leading cause of endstage liver disease in Western and Asian countries. However, after liver transplantation, HCV recurs in virtually all patients, and estimated HCV-related graft cirrhosis at 5-year follow-up is 30%. Although immunosuppression accounts for a major part of the accelerated progression of HCV in the transplant population, the best immunosuppression for recipients with HCV that could avoid such complication remains unknown at present. Combination therapy of interferon and ribavirin is thought to be the most effective for the treatment or prophylaxis of HCV infection. However, who should be treated, when treatment should be initiated, and with what agent should patients with HCV infection be treated are still unknown. The current data on HCV recurrence in patients who have received either living- or deceased-donor liver transplantation are controversial, but they are, presumably, similar. Thus, to avoid HCV recurrence in living-donor liver transplantation, we have to take approaches similar to those used for patients receiving deceased-donor liver transplantation. Based on reports from major transplant centers around the world, we consider the best strategy for liver transplantation-related HCV infection is steroid-free immunosuppression and preemptive low-dose interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. Here we describe our experience with living-donor liver transplantion for patients with hepatitis C at Osaka University. There is a need for standardizing the treatment for HCV infection. This can only be achieved through collaborative work between various liver transplant centers worldwide.

Treating hepatitis C infection in liver transplant recipients

Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a growing problem worldwide, with up to 300 million individuals infected, and those with chronic infection are at risk for cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. HCV infection is the most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States and Europe. Unfortunately, although transplantation is effective for treating decompensated cirrhosis and limited hepatocellular carcinoma associated with hepatitis C, HCV reinfection is virtually the rule among transplant recipients. Reinfection of the graft is associated with more rapidly progressive disease, with a median time to cirrhosis of 8 to 10 yr. Unfortunately, treatment of chronic HCV in liver transplant recipients is suboptimal. Combination therapy with interferon (pegylated and nonpegylated forms) plus ribavirin appears to provide maximum benefits. Drug therapy is usually administered for recurrent disease. No prophylactic therapy is available. Preemptive regimens offer no distinctive advantages over treatments begun for recurrent disease. Overall, treatment is poorly tolerated, with frequent need for dose reductions, especially from cytopenias, and drug discontinuations in up to 50% of patients. Optimizing drug doses is important in maximizing sustained virological response rates. Future therapies may include ribavirin alternatives with lower rates of anemia, alternative interferons with lower rates of cytopenias, and new antiviral drugs that can be used alone or in combination with either interferon or ribavirin to enhance sustained virological response rates and improve tolerability. Liver Transpl 12:1192-1204, 2006. (c) 2006 AASLD.

Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: History, Current Practice, and Implications for the Future

More than 1600 Americans have received adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants. As the number of patients with end-stage liver disease is expected to grow significantly in the next 20 years due to hepatitis C infection, living donor liver transplantation has become a promising solution to the shortage of donor organs. The use of living donors provides organs in an environment of scarcity, allows patients to receive transplants when medically optimized, and produces liver segments with minimal ischemic damage. The donor complications most frequently cited in the medical literature include bile leaks and strictures, biloma, hepatic encephalopathy, wound infection, and pressure sores. In the wake of 2 donor deaths in the United States and subsequent media publicity, there have been new efforts by the transplant community to describe the risks and outcomes for donors, and establish safeguards to protect them from excessive pressure to donate.

Living donor and split-liver transplants in hepatitis C recipients: does liver regeneration increase the risk for recurrence?

Concern exists that partial liver transplants (either a living donor [LD] or deceased donor [DD] in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive recipients may be associated with an increased risk for recurrence. From 1999 to 2003, at our institution, 51 HCV-positive recipients underwent liver transplants: 32 whole-liver (WL) transplants, 12 LD transplants and 7 DD split transplants. Donor characteristics differed in that WL donors were older, and LD livers had lower ischemic times. Recipient characteristics were similar except that mean MELD scores in LD recipients were lower (p < 0.05). With a mean follow-up of 28.3 months, 46 (90%) recipients are alive: three died from HCV recurrent liver disease and two from tumor recurrence. Based on 1-year protocol biopsies, the incidence of histologic recurrence in the three groups is as follows: WL, 81%; LD, 50% and DD split, 86% (p = 0.06 for LD versus WL). The mean grade of inflammation on the biopsy specimens was: WL, 1.31; LD, 0.33 and DD split, 1.2 (p = 0.002 for LD versus WL; p = 0.03 for LD versus DD split). Mean stage of fibrosis was: WL, 0.96; LD, 0.22 and DD split, 0.60 (p = 0.07 for LD versus WL). Liver regeneration does not seem to affect hepatitis C recurrence as much, perhaps, as factors such as DD status, donor age and cold ischemic time.

Progress in living donor liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has the capacity to reduce the current discrepancy between the number of patients on the transplant waiting list and the number of available organ donors. For pediatric patients, LDLT has clearly reduced the number of waiting list deaths, providing compelling evidence for an increase in LDLT programs. This review discusses many of the recent advances in LDLT.

First two cases of living related liver transplantation with complicated anatomy of blood vessels in Beijing

AIM: Living related liver transplantation (LRLT) has been developed in response to the paediatric organ donor shortage. Though it has been succeeded in many centers worldwide, the safety of the donor is still a major concern, especially in donors with anatomy variation. We succeeded in performing the first two cases of living related liver transplantation with complicated anatomy of blood vessels as a way to overcome cadaveric organ shortage in Beijing.

METHODS: Two patients, with congenital liver fibrosis and congenital biliary atresia were performed with living donor liver transplantation in our hospital and then followed up from November 12 to December 13, 2001. The two living donors, mother and father, were healthy aged 34 and 35 years. One right lobe (segment V, VI, VII, VIII) and one left lateral lobe (segment II and III) were used. The grafts weighed 394 g and 300 g. The ratio of graft weight to the standard liver volume (SLV) of donors was 68% and 27%. The graft weight to recipient body weight ratio was 3.2% and 4.4%. The graft weight to recipient estimated standard liver mass (ESLM) ratio was 63% and 85%. The two donors had complicated blood vessel variation.

RESULTS: Two patients undergone living donor liver transplantation had good results. Abnormal liver function with high bilirubin level appeared in a few days after operation, but liver function returned to normal one month after operation with bilirubin level almost decreased to near normal. No bleeding, thrombosis, infection and bile leakage occurred. One had an acute rejection and recovered. The two donors recovered in two weeks. One had slight fever because of a little collection in abdomen and recovered after paracentesis and drainage.

CONCLUSION: Living donor liver transplantation has been proved to be a good way that offers a unique opportunity of getting a timely liver graft as a response to shortage of pediatric donors, though it could be a technically difficult operation if there is anatomical variation.