The careful selection of donors is crucial to achieving a successful outcome in living donor liver transplantation. The evaluation process involves obtaining a comprehensive medical history and pertinent laboratory testing, evaluating surgical anatomy using cross-sectional radiologic imaging and understanding donor motivation and psycho social considerations. This review outlines the evaluation of a potential living liver donor and discussed frequently encountered special considerations that may need to be addressed by the transplant team.

Over the last decades, liver transplantation (LT) has evolved into a life-saving procedure. Due to limited deceased donor activities in the eastern world, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) had flourished tremendously in most Asian countries. Yet, these LDLT activities fall short of meeting the expected demands. Pakistan, a developing country, bears a major burden of liver diseases. Currently, only few centers offer LDLT services in the country. On the other hand, deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) activities have not started due to social, cultural, and religious beliefs. Various strategies can be adopted successfully to overcome the scarcity of live liver donors (LLDs) and to expand the donor pool, keeping in view donor safety and recipient outcome. These include consideration of LLDs with underlying clinical conditions like G6PD deficiency and Hepatitis B core positivity. Extended donor criteria can also be utilized and relaxation can be made in various donors' parameters including upper age and body mass index after approval from the multidisciplinary board. Also, left lobe grafts, grafts with various anatomical variations, and a low graft-to-recipient ratio can be considered in appropriate situations. ABO-incompatible LT and donor swapping at times may help in expanding the LLDs pool. Similarly, legislation is needed to allow live non-blood-related donors for organ donations. Finally, community education and awareness through various social media flat forms are needed to promote deceased organ donation.

Organ transplantation is a life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage organ disease, a severe condition associated with a high risk of waitlist mortality. It is primarily limited by a shortage of available organs. Maximising available donors can increase access to transplantation. Transplantation from donors positive for HBV and HIV has increased in many countries. However, antiviral therapies need to be readily available for recipients after transplantation to prevent possible reactivation of the virus following the administration of immunosuppressive therapies. Furthermore, the intentional transmission of a virus has practical, ethical, and clinical implications. In this review, we summarise the current research, focusing on grafts from donors positive for the HBV surface antigen, antibodies against the HBV core antigen, and HIV, to help hepatologists and physicians interested in transplantation to select the best antiviral and/or prophylactic regimens for after transplantation.

Liver grafts from hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive donors increase the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in recipients due to posttransplant immunosuppressive therapy.

to study the HBV reactivation in liver transplant recipients with anti-HBc-positive donors.

This was a retrospective study. Liver transplant recipients who received grafts from anti-HBc-positive donors between January 2013 and December 2017 were included in analysis. Hospital records of all subjects for a 2-year posttransplantation period were studied to observe reactivation of hepatitis B. As per our institute protocol, prophylaxis for HBV was given to subjects with either positive hepatitis B surface antigens or hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titre <100 mIU/ml, after transplantation with anti-HBc-positive donor grafts. Recipients with anti-HBs titre >100 mIU/mL were exempted from prophylaxis and kept on regular monitoring for HBV markers.

Of 85 liver transplant recipients, 20 subjects who received anti-HBc-positive grafts were included in analysis. The mean age of the study population was 46 years (range 2-68 years). The most common aetiology of cirrhosis in our study population was cryptogenic followed by ethanol. Among the study population, 16 (80%) transplant recipients had anti-HBs titre less than 100 mu/ml and 4 (20%) subjects had anti-HBs > 100 miu/ml. HBV reactivation occurred in 6 (30%) subjects. Reactivation was seen even in those who received HBV prophylaxis, while none of the subjects with anti-HBs titre >100 miu/ml developed HBV reactivation despite absence of prophylaxis.

HBV reactivation can occur even in the presence of target anti-HBs titre (i.e. >10 miu/ml) and HBV prophylaxis during postliver transplantation. However, HBV reactivation is not seen in recipients with anti-HBs titre of >100 miu/ml.

The impact of hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive liver grafts on survival and the risk of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after liver transplantation (LT) remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to analyze this risk and the associated outcomes in a large cohort of patients.

This was a retrospective study that included all adults who underwent LT at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, between 2000 and 2015. Data were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. Antiviral monotherapy prophylaxis was given for patients receiving grafts from anti-HBc positive donors.

A total of 964 LTs were performed during the study period, with 416 (43.2%) anti-HBc positive and 548 (56.8%) anti-HBc negative donors. The median follow-up time was 7.8 years. Perioperative outcomes (hospital mortality, complications, primary nonfunction and delayed graft function) were similar between the 2 groups. The 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were comparable in anti-HBc positive (93.3%, 85.3% and 76.8%) and anti-HBc negative groups (92.5%, 82.9% and 78.4%, p = 0.944). The 1-, 5- and 10-year patient survival rates in anti-HBc positive group were 94.2%, 87% and 79% and were similar to the anti-HBc negative group (93.5%, 84% and 79.7%, p = 0.712). One-hundred and eight HBsAg negative recipients received anti-HBc positive grafts, of whom 64 received lamivudine and 44 entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. The risk of de novo HBV was 3/108 (2.8%) and all occurred in the lamivudine era. There were 659 HBsAg-positive patients and 308 (46.7%) received anti-HBc positive grafts. The risk of HBV recurrence was similar between the 2 groups. Donor anti-HBc status did not impact on long-term patient and graft survival, or the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after LT.

De novo HBV was exceedingly rare especially with entecavir prophylaxis. Anti-HBc positive grafts did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after transplant.

The risk of de novo hepatitis B infection after liver transplantation was rare when using hepatitis B core positive liver grafts with entecavir monotherapy prophylaxis. Hepatitis B core antibody status did not impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes after liver transplantation. This provides support for the clinical use of hepatitis B core positive liver grafts when required.

The use of serum anti-hepatitis B core antibody (HBc)-positive/hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative liver donors for patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related liver disease (HBRLD) is a promising means of expanding the organ donor pool and does not increase the risk of HBV recurrence. However, whether such donors will compromise the histology of the liver grafts is unclear.

Among 84 patients who underwent transplantation for HBRLD and who did not have post-transplant HBV recurrence (non-detectable serum HBsAg and HBV DNA), 19 underwent liver biopsy (eight received anti-HBc-positive/HBsAg-negative liver grafts; 11 received anti-HBc-negative liver grafts) and were included in the study. Intrahepatic total HBV DNA and covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) were detected using real-time polymerase chain reaction; histological characteristics were evaluated with the Batts-Ludwig semi-quantitative scoring system.

Of the 19 recipients, nine (47.4%) were positive for intrahepatic HBV DNA; 82.5% (7/8) received grafts from anti-HBc-positive donors and 18.2% (2/11) received grafts from anti-HBc-negative donors (P=0.003). HBV cccDNA was not detectable in the liver grafts of the 19 recipients. Ten patients had mild inflammation and minimal fibrosis in the portal area: four of the eight in the anti-HBc-positive group and six of the 11 in the anti-HBc-negative group (P>0.05).

Anti-HBc-positive/HBsAg-negative donors for HBRLD pose a higher risk of occult HBV infection post-liver transplant but do not cause liver damage. Thus, anti-HBc-positive grafts may be considered an effective and safe means of expanding the pool of liver donors for patients with HBRLD.

Although there are many reports on donor safety, there are few concerning aborted donations. We sought to analyze the "no go" donor hepatectomies in our liver transplantation center over 10 years' experience.

Among 290 living donors brought to the operating room for liver graft harvest from March 2002 to April 2012, we examined the reasons to abandon the procedure, comparing their data with those of successful donors.

The donor operation was aborted in 5 cases various for reasons. The main reason for the abandonment of the operation process was poor liver quality: in single cases there was: poor liver quality due to a massive cirrhotic nodule observed by laparoscopy; serious steatosis of the liver, indicated by an intraoperative biopsy; and an unsuitable biliary anatomy, including 4 branches with 2 small ones. In another case, a biliary duct variation in the intraoperative cholangiogram showed a narrow crotch of the left and right ducts. In the 5th case, the donor would have been left with only a small remaining left lobe (<30%) if the right lobe had been harvested. All 5 donors proceeded to accept a right lobe hepatectomy. Comparison with the 285 successful donors showed no significant differences in preoperative demographic data. All 5 donors recovered without complication and were in good condition over long-term follow-up.

A low rate of "no go" donor hepatectomy can be achieved. There was no short- or long-term harm to the living donor owing to abandonment of the procedure.

Transplantation of nonstandard or expanded criteria donor organs creates several potential ethical and legal problems in terms of consent and liability, and new challenges for research and service development; it highlights the need for a system of organ donation that responds to an evolving ethical landscape and incorporates scientific innovation to meet the needs of recipients, but which also safeguards the interests and autonomy of the donor. In this article, the use of deceased donor organs for transplants that fail to meet standard donor criteria and the legitimacy of interventions and research aimed at optimizing their successful donation are discussed.

The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence and risk factors of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection from hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc)-positive donors in pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

We retrospectively analyzed 46 recipients without pre-liver transplantation (LT) HBV infection evidence who underwent LDLT from October 2006 to May 2011 in our center. HBV markers, including hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody (anti-HBs), anti-HBc, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and antibody (anti-HBe) were determined in both donors and recipients before LT and in recipients after LT. HBV DNA titer was measured if the recipients were strongly suspected of de novo HBV infection.

Without prophylaxis, de novo HBV infection occurred in 11 of 46 recipients (23.9%) 6-36 months after LT. All 11 patients received grafts from anti-HBc-positive donors. The donors' baseline status and the characteristics of recipients at the time of transplantation were not associated with the acquisition of de novo hepatitis B infection. The overall 2-year survival rate of patients from anti-HBc-positive donors was 84.2%. Two de novo HBV-infected patients who had YMDD mutation were given adefovir combined with lamivudine, and their liver function gradually improved during the follow-up period.

Anti-HBc-positive donors can significantly increase the incidence of de novo HBV infection in HBsAg-negative recipients. Administration with adefovir in patients who are resistant to lamivudine seems to be an effective and safe way for de novo HBV infection.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), since its advent in late 1980's and early 1990's, has rapidly increased especially in countries like Japan, Korea and India where cadaveric programmes are not as well established as in the western world. The main advantage of LDLT is the availability of an organ in the elective setting in the course of a progressive liver disease. This is most applicable in patients with Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular carcinoma. LDLT, from the donor's perspective does carry a risk of not only morbidity but mortality. To date the surgical mortality risk is estimated at 0.1% for left lateral donation and 0.5% for right liver donation. Donor mortality has been reported from various centres in India. There are reports of complications like Hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis and especially biliary leaks and strictures occurring at a significantly increased frequency after living as compared to deceased donor liver transplantation. The key to reduce donor morbidity and mortality is meticulous donor selection and thorough donor work up. In the present study we will analyse the factors that contributed to donor mortality and morbidity and prepare a detailed work up plan, intraoperative and post-operative strategy to reduce donor morbidity and mortality.

Although hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission after liver transplantation of grafts from HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc positive donors is well established, the growing organ shortage favours the use of such marginal grafts. We systematically evaluated the risk of HBV infection after liver transplantation with such grafts and the effect of anti-HBV prophylaxis.

We performed a literature review over the last 15 years identifying 39 studies including 903 recipients of anti-HBc positive liver grafts.

Recurrent HBV infection developed in 11% of HBsAg-positive liver transplant recipients of anti-HBc positive grafts, while survival was similar (67-100%) to HBsAg-positive recipients of anti-HBc negative grafts. De novo HBV infection developed in 19% of HBsAg-negative recipients being less frequent in anti-HBc/anti-HBs positive than HBV naive cases without prophylaxis (15% vs 48%, p<0.001). Anti-HBV prophylaxis reduced de novo infection rates in both anti-HBc/anti-HBs positive (3%) and HBV naive recipients (12%). De novo infection rates were 19%, 2.6% and 2.8% in HBsAg-negative recipients under hepatitis B immunoglobulin, lamivudine and their combination, respectively.

Liver grafts from anti-HBc positive donors can be safely used, preferentially in HBsAg-positive or anti-HBc/anti-HBs positive recipients. HBsAg-negative recipients should receive prophylaxis with lamivudine, while both anti-HBc and anti-HBs positive recipients may need no prophylaxis at all.

Because the gap between liver organ supply and demand continues to increase, adult living-donor liver transplantation continues to represent a significant pool of organs.

With this in mind, we discuss recent issues in adult living-donor liver transplantation, including issues with donor evaluation and selection, donor liver biopsy, orphan organ allocation, donor morbidity and mortality, outcomes compared with deceased donor liver transplant from time of evaluation, death on the waiting list, and evolving recipient indications for living-donor liver transplantation.

Increasing the number of living-donor liver transplants would allow us to expedite transplant, avoid death on the waitlist, and possibly save more lives by expanding the criteria for transplant. These benefits must always be weighed against the potential risks and complications to the donor, which can be significant.

The 2007 American Society of Transplant Surgeons' (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium entitled, 'Solving the Organ Shortage Crisis' explored ways to increase the supply of donor organs to meet the challenge of increasing waiting lists and deaths while awaiting transplantation. While the increasing use of organs previously considered marginal, such as those from expanded criteria donors (ECD) or donors after cardiac death (DCD) has increased the number of transplants from deceased donors, these transplants are often associated with inferior outcomes and higher costs. The need remains for innovative ways to increase both deceased and living donor transplants. In addition to increasing ECD and DCD utilization, increasing use of deceased donors with certain types of infections such as Hepatitis B and C, and increasing use of living donor liver, lung and intestinal transplants may also augment the organ supply. The extent by which donors may be offered incentives for donation, and the practical, ethical and legal implications of compensating organ donors were also debated. The expanded use of nonstandard organs raises potential ethical considerations about appropriate recipient selection, informed consent and concerns that the current regulatory environment discourages and penalizes these efforts.

Liver transplantation using a graft from a donor with a positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) has been contraindicated owing to the extremely high risk for recurrent disease leading to graft loss. However, the severe shortage of donors often forces the transplant community to utilize suboptimal donors, especially in the setting of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

Here, we report a case of successful LDLT for a patient with hepatitis B-related cirrhosis utilizing a graft from an HBsAg-positive 'healthy carrier' donor using a combination prophylaxis of lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil.

To date, the patient has been doing well with normal liver function tests and liver histological findings at 4 years after the transplantation and the donor has also been doing well.

Although virological recurrence appears to be universal despite prophylaxis, re-evaluation of the use of a graft from a healthy HBsAg-positive donor is warranted in this era of combination prophylaxis.

The efficacy of hepatitis B vaccination after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in patients transplanted anti-HBc-positive grafts or in patients who underwent LDLT for fulminant hepatitis B remains unknown.

A total of 11 recipients who underwent LDLT between October 1996 and October 2002 prospectively received hepatitis B vaccination three times within 6 months, starting a few weeks after the cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) prophylaxis. Serial quantification of the hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) was performed.

At the last follow-up, six out of 11 patients (54.5%) had seroconversion and were free from HBIG thereafter. Four out of those six responders had a peak HBsAb level of more than 1000 IU/L, while the other two patients had peak HbsAb levels below 1000 IU/L. Five patients never responded to the treatment and were back to HBIG prophylaxis. The average age of the six responders was 25.5 years, which was significantly younger than that of non-responders (44.4 years, P<0.05). None had side effects or hepatitis B infection during the study period.

In conclusion, the use of this treatment modality could be used to reduce the cost of HBIG.

Since the introduction of liver transplantation as a routine surgical procedure for the treatment of end-stage liver disease, there has been an increasing gap between the number of available grafts and the number of patients on the waiting list. This has led transplant centers to expand the donor pool by different means. One of them has been the introduction of living donor liver transplantation. Other strategies include using less than optimal allografts from deceased donors, the so-called marginal donors, which include the use of grafts from older subjects, livers with moderate amounts of steatosis, or from donors with markers of past or current infection with hepatitis viruses who have absent or minimal liver biochemical or histologic injury. In this review, we will focus on the current use of allografts from donors with antihepatitis B core antibody and/or antibodies against hepatitis C virus in cadaveric and living donor liver transplantation.

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.

Serious complications have occurred in a considerable proportion of living donors of liver transplants, but data from a single high-volume center has rarely been available. We analyzed the medical records of donors and recipients of the first 1,000 living donor liver transplants, performed at Asan Medical Center from December 1994 to June 2005, with a focus on donor safety. There were 107 pediatric and 893 adult transplants. The most common diagnoses were biliary atresia in pediatric recipients (63%) and hepatitis B-associated liver cirrhosis (80%) in adult recipients. Right lobe donors were strictly selected based on liver resection rate and steatosis. From 1,162 living donors, 588 right lobes, 6 extended right lobes, 7 right posterior segments, 464 left lobes, and 107 left lateral segments were obtained. Of these, 837 grafts were implanted singly, whereas 325, along with 1 cadaveric split graft, were implanted as dual grafts into 163 recipients. The 5-yr survival rates were 84.8% in pediatric recipients and 83.2% in adult recipients. There was no donor mortality, but 3.2% of donors experienced major complications. Until the end of 2001, the major donor complication rate was 6.7%, with most occurring in right liver donors. Since 2002, liver resection exceeding 65% of whole liver volume were avoided except for young donors with no hepatic steatosis, and the donor complication rate has been reduced to 1.3%. In conclusion, a majority of major living donor complications appear to be avoidable through the strict selection of living donor and graft type, intensive postoperative surveillance, and timely feedback of surgical techniques. Selection of right lobe graft should be very prudently considered if the donor right liver appears to be larger than 65% of the whole liver volume.

The increasing awareness of liver diseases and their early detection have led to an increase in the number of transplant waiting list candidates over the past decade. This need has not been matched by the actual number of orthotopic liver transplantations performed. Live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an innovative surgical technique intended to expand the available organ donor pool. Although LDLT offers definite advantages to the recipient, it offers none to the donor except for the possibility of psychological well-being. Clinical research studies aimed at the prospective collection of data for donors and recipients need to be conducted.

In the absence of preventative therapy, reinfection of allografts with hepatitis B virus (HBV) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) resulted in dismal allograft and patient survival. Major advances in the management of HBV-infected recipients of OLT during the past 15 years have steadily reduced the rate of reinfection, resulting in improved outcomes. Initially, long-term use of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) as a source of anti-HBs antibodies was effective in preventing or delaying reinfection. Lamivudine monotherapy made it possible to suppress HBV replication prior to OLT, markedly decreasing the risk of reinfection. Although lamivudine monotherapy used before and after OLT could prevent reinfection, its effectiveness was limited by progressive development of lamivudine-resistant mutant infections. Combination therapy with HBIG and lamivudine after OLT reduced both HBV recurrence and the risk of lamivudine resistance even in patients with active HBV replication. Introduction of adefovir provided a safe, alternative oral antiviral able to treat effectively lamivudine-resistant mutants HBV. Available strategies to prevent reinfection have resulted in OLT outcomes for HBV-infected patients comparable to those for patients transplanted for non-HBV indications. In the future, combination therapies of HBIG and both nucleoside and/or nucleotide agents will undoubtedly be optimized. Development of new drugs to treat HBV will increase opportunities to combine agents to enhance safety, efficacy and prevent emergence of HBV escape mutants. New vaccines and adjuvants may make it possible to generate anti-HBs in immunosuppressed patients, eliminating the need for HBIG.

The field of liver transplantation continues to evolve. This review discusses the major themes of controversy and investigation over the past 12 months.

Organ allocation remains a major area of investigation and controversy in liver transplantation. The MELD system, which has been implemented since 2002, appears to adequately predict both death on the waiting list and short-term survival after OLT. However, regional variations in allocation remain despite this system. In an attempt to further increase available organs, living donor adult transplantation has gained interest. However, with continued high rates of reported complications and additional reports of donor deaths, interest has been tempered and more diligent evaluation of the ethics and techniques for this procedure have been sought. As more patients continue to survive for longer periods after OLT, medical complications from medications are now seen and require skillful management in these individuals. Recurrent viral disease after transplant remains a significant challenge as will the increasing need for retransplantation in these patients.

The review of the literature in liver transplantation continues to raise more issues than answer questions. It is likely that going into the future the key themes reviewed here will remain as further studies of larger patient populations will be required to more specifically identify "best practice" for care of these individuals.