Preoperative imaging evaluation of potential living liver donors: reasons for exclusion from donation in adult living donor liver transplantation

Accurate pretransplant evaluation of a potential donor in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is essential in preventing postoperative liver failure and optimizing safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for exclusion from donation of potential donors in adult LDLT. From September 2003 to June 2006, 266 potential donors were evaluated for 215 recipients: 220 potential donors for 176 adult recipients; 46 for 39 pediatric recipients. Imaging modalities including Doppler ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) angiography provided vascular evaluation and MR cholangiopancreatography to evaluate biliary anatomy. Calculation of liver volume and assessment of steatosis were performed by enhanced and nonenhanced CT, respectively. In the adult group, only 83 (37.7%) potential donors were considered suitable for LDLT. Of the 137 unsuitable potential donors, 36 (26.2%) candidates were canceled because of recipient issues that included death of 15 recipients (10.9%), main portal vein thrombosis (8%), recipient condition beyond surgery (5%), and no indication for liver transplantation due to disease improvement (2%). The remaining 101 (73.8%) candidates who were excluded included steatosis (27.7%), an inadequate remnant volume (57.4%), small-for-size graft (8.9%), HLA-homozygous donor leading to one-way donor-recipient HLA match (3%), psychosocial problems (4%), as well as variations of hepatic artery (4%), portal vein (1%), and biliary system anatomy (5%). Anatomic considerations were not the main reason for exclusion of potential donors. An inadequate remnant liver volume (<30%) is the crucial point for the adult LDLT decision.     

Living liver donation: preoperative assessment,anatomic considerations,and long-term outcome

BACKGROUND: A major prerequisite for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) as an acceptable treatment modality is thoughtful consideration of the donor. However, there has been no comprehensive audit of living liver donation focusing on issues such as donor selection, anatomic surveys, and long-term outcome. METHODS: Between June 1990 and January 2002 at our institution, 160 LDLTs were performed and 177 patients were referred for LDLT. For these patients, a total of 203 potential donors were screened. The process of donor selection, safety of donor hepatectomy, and postoperative morbidity were investigated. Additionally, an anonymous questionnaire was administered to 100 donors who had undergone LDLT more than 3 years previously. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (19%) of the 203 donor candidates were excluded. Precise estimation of the hepatic anatomy was indispensable for donor safety. None of the donors showed prolonged postoperative liver dysfunction nor developed complications requiring reoperation or readmission. There was no donor mortality. The responses to the questionnaire indicated that 95% of the living donors had not felt coerced to donate and that 5% were neutral about coercion pressure. There were no severe postoperative aftereffects, but minor problems were reported by 51% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Our appraisal of the perioperative and long-term postoperative course of LDLT donors revealed that although most donors are satisfied after undergoing LDLT, there is a need for strict attention to the process of donor selection and long-term postoperative follow-up. The outcome of the present series seems to confirm the safety of donor hepatectomy.     

Computer-Assisted Operative Planning in Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A New Way to Resolve the Dilemma of the Middle Hepatic Vein

An adequate venous outflow is essential for securing viability of both graft and remnant in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). Seventy-five potential live liver donors were evaluated for LDLT by means of an "all-in-one" CT, which defined the biliary tree, portal vein, hepatic artery, and hepatic vein anatomy. The acquired data sets were further analysed by means of the software HepaVision (MeVis, Germany). Only a minority (29%) of potential donors were found to have a vascular and biliary anatomy consistent with the classically described "normal" patterns. The vast majority (71%) had "anatomical variations". Thirty-nine (52%) donors underwent ALDLT hepatectomy. The right hepatic vein was dominant in 64 cases, representing 48 +/- 6% of the total liver volume (TLV). The middle hepatic vein was dominant in 11 cases, making up 40 +/- 8% of the TLV. The left hepatic vein was never dominant. The volume contribution of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) was 114-782 ml for the right and 87-419 ml for the left hemiliver. Computer-assisted planning allows for the 3D reconstruction of the vascular and biliary anatomy, automatic calculation of the total and territorial liver volumes, and risk analysis of hepatic vein dominance relationships. This comprehensive data acquisition supports preoperative evaluation and provides a high degree of safety for donors and improved outcomes for recipients.     

Safety of donor in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using right lobe graft

BACKGROUND: The growing gap between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation and available organs has continued to be the primary issue facing the transplant community. To overcome the waiting list mortality, living donor liver transplantation has become an option, in which the greatest concern is the safety of the donor, especially in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A-A LDLT) using a right lobe liver graft. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety of donors after right lobe liver donation for A-A LDLT performed in our center. METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2006, 26 patients underwent A-A LDLT using right lobe liver grafts in our center. Seven donors were men and 19 were women (range, 19-65 years; median age, 38 years). The right lobe liver grafts were obtained by transecting the liver on the right side of the middle hepatic vein without interrupting the vascular blood flow. The mean follow-up time for these donors was 9 months. RESULTS: These donor residual liver volumes ranged from 30.5% to 60.3%. We did not experience any donor mortality. Two cases (7.69%) experienced major complications: intra-abdominal bleeding and portal vein thrombosis in one each and three (11.54%), minor ones: wound steatosis in two, and transient chyle leak in one. All donors were fully recovered and returned to their previous occupations. CONCLUSIONS: A-A LDLT using a right lobe liver graft has become a standard option. The donation of right lobe liver for A-A LDLT was a relatively safe procedure in our center.     

Donor outcomes in right lobe adult living donor liver transplantation: single-center experience in Egypt

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative source of organs for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) in absence of deceased donor LT. In LDLT the greatest concern is donor safety. Our objective was to evaluate the outcome of donors after right lobe liver donation in a single LT center in Egypt. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty LDL resections were performed from 2001 to 2004. The mean donor age was 29.2 +/- 6.4 years. Residual liver volume was 41.1 +/- 4.5%. Mean operative time was 560 +/- 62.2 minutes; mean ICU stay, less than 24 hours; mean hospital stay, 15.4 +/- 7.7 days; and mean follow-up period, 6 months. RESULTS: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was 68% (34 donors). Major complications included intraoperative bleeding in one, biliary leak in two, and pneumonia in three donors. Minor complications included mild pleural effusion in 13 donors, transient ascites in 10, mild depression in 7, intra-abdominal collections in 3, and wound infections in 1 donor. Residual liver volume did not affect the complication rate. None required reoperation. Return to predonation activity occurred within 6 to 8 weeks. No liver impairment occurred during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Right lobe adult LDLT is a safe procedure with regard to donor outcome. Major complications occurred in only 10% of our series.     

The challenge of finding donors for living donor liver transplantation in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION: Organ shortage remains the main limiting factor for expanding liver transplantation (LT) in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was recently undertaken by our team at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC), in an effort to meet the increasing demand for LT in Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVE: Analysis of donors assessed for LDLT at KFSH&RC. METHODS: Between September 2002 and May 2003, 39 potential donors were assessed for LDLT. First- or second-degree relationship to the recipient was an essential precondition. Assessment included biochemical testing, radiological studies (computed tomography: magnetic resonance angiography, magnetic resonance cholangiography), and thorough psychosocial analysis. Liver biopsy and hepatic angiogram was performed in some but not all donors. RESULTS: Male:female ratio was 28:11. Median age was 27 (18 to 34). Of 39 potential donors, only three underwent LDLT. The remaining 36 were rejected for different reasons including: psychosocial in 8 (20.5%), fatty liver in 7 (17.9%), recipient issues in 6 (15.4%), refusal after initial approval in 3 (7.7%), unfavorable anatomy in 2 (5.1%), inadequate liver volume in 2 (5.1%), abnormal liver functions in 2 (5.1%), hepatitis C virus in 2 (5.1%), liver pathology in 1 (2.6%), and other medical concerns in remaining 3 donors (7.7%). CONCLUSION: In Saudi Arabia, donor availability as well as recipient characteristics may limit the value of LDLT in overcoming organ shortage. Therefore, efforts should be directed to improve the number and quality of available cadaveric organs. Until then, LDLT may be the only way forward to save patients from dying on the waiting list.     

Selection of Safe Donors for Living Donor Liver Transplant Using Extended Right Lobe Graft

Extended right lobectomy (ERL) for living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is selectively performed in many transplant centers and has shown excellent recipient outcomes as reported in previous studies. Yet, there is no universally accepted indication for ERL in respect to donor safety. Current study was designed to stratify risk factors of adverse donor outcome after ERL. A total of 79 living donors who underwent ERL for LDLT were included in analysis. Donors were classified as safety and hazard donor groups according to postoperative findings relevant to posthepatectomy liver failure classification by the International Study Group for Liver Surgery. On multivariable analysis, left lateral section volume <20% of total liver volume and nonpreservation of segment 4a venous drainage were the independent risk factors impairing postoperative outcomes. Despite the short-term impairment of liver function in hazard donor groups, all donors recovered and showed satisfactory remnant liver regeneration. However, these findings have implications in establishing selection criteria of donors eligible for ERL donation. In conclusion, LDLT using ERL graft can be safely performed provided so that left lateral section volume/total donor liver is ≥20% besides conventional donor selection criteria. Also, efforts to preserve segment 4a vein must be made in performing ERL graft procurement in LDLT donors.     

Surgery-related morbidity in living donors of right-lobe liver graft: lessons from the first 200 cases

BACKGROUND: Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the left lateral segment or left-lobe graft has been widely accepted, but currently, right-lobe grafts are more commonly used in many LDLT programs with yet unknown risks for donors. METHODS: We investigated our initial 200 donors of righ-lobe grafts to focus on the incidence and variety of surgery-related morbidity. Changes in liver function tests were also analyzed to clarify the relation with donor age, steatosis of the liver, and residual liver volume (RLV). Complications were surveyed for a median period of 28.7 months. RESULTS: In all the donors, liver enzymes and bilirubin were normalized within 1 month. Enzymes on day 1 were significantly higher in donors with older age, macrovesicular steatosis, and larger RLV. Bilirubin on day 1 was significantly higher in donors with smaller RLV. Biliary enzyme was not normalized in the majority at 1 month after donation. Seventy-five complications occurred in 69 donors. Biliary complications were most common, which consisted of 26 bile leakages (13%) and 3 biliary strictures (1.5%) in 27 donors. No significant dependence of the incidence was observed either for donor age (>or=50 years), body mass index (BMI) (>or=25 kg/m2), estimated RLV (<40%), or medical history. None of the complications led either to mortality or to long-term sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: Complications occurred in a significant proportion of right-lobe donors irrespective of donor age, BMI, estimated RLV, and medical history. Living-liver donor surgery requires more care in right-lobe transplants.     

Psychosomatische Aspekte der Leberlebendspende

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the option to reduce organ scarcity and thereby waiting list mortality. The crucial ethical problem of LDLT is the fact that the well being of a donor is being jeopardized for the improvement of quality of life of the recipient. To preserve mental health of the donors, psychosomatic evaluation should be conducted including examination of the coping capacity, the mental stability of the donor and the voluntary nature of the donation. Thus a comprehensive disclosure of information to donors is necessary. Realistic outcome expectations, family relationships without extreme conflicts, sufficient autonomy of the donor-recipient relationship and social and familiar support are predictors facilitating a favorable psychosocial outcome for the donor. Before and after LDLT the health-related quality of life of the donors is similar or increased in comparison to the general population. Psychiatric complications following LDLT can occur in 13% of the donors. Female donors, donors who have surgical complications themselves and donors with unrealistic outcome expectations should be given psychotherapeutic support before they are admitted to living liver donation. Urgent indications in the case of acute liver failure and the donation by adult children for their parents are particular stress factors. For the safety of the donor, these combinations should be avoided whenever possible.     

Dual left lobe living donor liver transplantation using donors unacceptable for right lobe donation: a case report

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has become a viable alternative for end-stage liver disease. The shortage of brain-dead donors has led to development of advanced surgical approaches. Dual lobe LDLT has been performed successfully in the recent years. The major indication for this complex procedure has been insufficient graft size from a single donor or insufficient remnant in the donor. We performed a dual left lobe LDLT using 2 donors who were unacceptable for right lobe donation.     

Donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation: single-institute experience

Aim

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been widely accepted because of the severe shortage of hepatic grafts. However, the healthy donor is exposed to risks of morbidity and mortality. In this study, we analyzed medical, functional, and psychological outcomes of donors after hepatectomy for liver donation.

Patients and methods

Among 41 donor hepatectomy cases for LDLT performed in our institute from January 1994 to May 2011, we reviewed the medical records (liver function tests, complications, etc) of 27 subjects who donated to recipients older than 12 years. We also performed a questionnaire survey based on the Japanese Short Form-36 version 2 Health Survey scales as a measure of physical and mental health, to which 31 subjects responded.

Results

Six of the 27 donors experienced prolonged jaundice. Their ratios of graft volume/standard donor liver volume (GV/SDLV) were higher than those of the 21 donors without prolonged jaundice (60.0% vs 41.5%). According to the questionnaires, social functioning among those having undergone emergency hepatectomy as well as general health perceptions declined in those with postoperative complications. Physical component summary declined among those having undergone emergency hepatectomy and with postoperative complications.

Conclusion

In liver donation from a living donor, massive hepatectomy should be avoided. A ratio of GV/SDLV around 50% seems reasonable. Donors with emergency transplantations or postoperative complications must be more carefully followed after donor hepatectomy.     

Attitude toward living donor liver transplantation in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes and characteristics of donors for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: This retrospective study was performed by a mailing or by telephone using a questionnaire. LDLT donors were recruited from a teaching hospitals located in a metropolitan area of northern Taiwan. The 11-item attitude questionnaire was specifically developed from the literature review with coordinator, physician, and donor feedback. Donors were asked to rate the queries on a 5-point Likert intensity scale. RESULTS: The 47 LDLT donors included 28 (60%) women and 19 (40%) men. Most of the LDLT donors were aged less than 30 years old (n = 24, 51%) with (n = 12, 26%) between 31 and 40 years, and 11 (23%) more than 41 years. Self-perceived health status was poor (n = 4, 9%), not bad (n = 22, 47%), good (n = 19, 40%), or very good (n = 2, 4%). The top five LDLT donor attitudes were recognition of liver donation (n = 42, 89%), recognition of brain donation (n = 41, 88%), a hero (n = 35, 75%), honor to be a donor (n = 35, 5%), and improved relationship with recipient after donation (n = 33, 70%). The best person to suggest organ donation to a family was ranked as the doctors related to transplantation (n = 41, 88%), transplantation nurse coordinator (n = 40, 85%), social worker (n = 23, 49%), and doctor unrelated to transplantation (n = 17, 17%). CONCLUSION: This study revealed positive attitudes toward donation. Some data afford insight to the decision-making procedure. Donor concerns may help professionals provide better interventions in the future.     

Severe psychiatric problems in right hepatic lobe donors for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality from donation of a right hepatic lobe for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an important issue for this procedure. We report the prevalence of severe psychiatric postoperative complications from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort study (A2ALL), which was established to define the risks and benefits of LDLT for donors and recipients. METHODS: Severe psychiatric complications were evaluated in all donors from the A2ALL study who were evaluated between 1998 and February 2003. RESULTS: Of the 392 donors, 16 (4.1%) had one or multiple psychiatric complications, including three severe psychiatric complications (suicide, accidental drug overdose, and suicide attempt). CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive preoperative screening, some donors experience severe psychiatric complications, including suicide, after liver donation. Psychiatric assessment and monitoring of liver donors may help to understand and prevent such tragic events.     

Delayed bile leakage from a remaining part of segment 8 in a posterior section graft after living donor liver transplantation: a common pitfall in harvesting a posterior section graft? A case report

In Japan and Korea, where availability of deceased donor organs for solid organ transplantation remains rare, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a posterior section graft (PSG; segments VI+VII, according to Couinaud's Nomenclature for liver segmentation) has now been accepted as a standard procedure that balances donor risk and patient benefits for cases in which right hemi-liver donation is too risky, because of marked volume imbalances between right and left hemi-livers. Compared with other types of grafts, however, the procedure requires detailed knowledge concerning hepatic vascular anatomy and meticulous manipulation during donation surgery. We present herein a case of delayed bile leakage from a remaining part of segment 8 in a PSG, which was considered to be a complication peculiar to LDLT using a PSG.     

Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy—the Toronto approach,tips and tricks

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. Nevertheless, it has not been extensively accepted in North America or Europe as it has been in Asia. At the University of Toronto we initiated our LDLT program in 2000 and since then our program has grown each year, representing today the largest LDLT program in North America. Our right-lobe LDLT experience from 2000−2014 includes 474 right lobes. Only 30% of our grafts have included the middle hepatic vein. We present excellent outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival which is not different to that achieved with deceased donor liver transplantation. In the present study we will discuss the evolution, challenges and current practices of our LDLT program. We will discuss what is and has been the program philosophy. We will also discuss how we evaluate our donors and the extensive workup we do before a donor is accepted for live donation. Furthermore we will discuss some tips and tricks of how we perform the right hepatectomy for live donation.     

Biliary complications in living liver donors

With the increasing use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the morbidity and mortality of the donors have thus become inevitable problems associated with this procedure. The most common postoperative complications among donors for LDLT involve the biliary tract. The incidence of biliary complications in donors tends to be about 5% based on recent publications. Anatomical variations in the biliary tract, higher predonation alkaline phosphatase levels, and intraoperative blood transfusions are also risk factors for biliary complications in the donors after donation. Donors with biliary complications often show unspecific symptoms and most of the biliary complications can be normally treated by nonsurgical methods. Interventional procedures such as percutaneous placement of a peritoneal drain, percutaneous/endoscopic biliary drainage, and combinations of balloon dilatation and/or stenting are effective in the treatment of bile leakage and biliary stricture. A clear understanding of the biliary anatomy of each donor and refined surgical techniques will help to minimize risk of biliary complications for living liver donors.     

Clinical Outcomes and Evaluation of the Quality of Life of Living Donors for Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Analysis of 100 Donors

There are few reports about the quality of life (QOL) and morbidities of pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) donors. We evaluated the potential morbidities and identified the predictive factors regarding the QOL of living donors after pediatric LDLT. This cross-sectional study was a single-center analysis of 100 donors for pediatric LDLT. The severity of morbidities was assessed with the Clavien classification, the QOL was investigated with the short form-36 (SF-36), and the decision-making process regarding donation was analyzed with questionnaires. The median follow-up period was 3.8 years (range, 2.2–6.0 years). A total of 13% of the donors developed postoperative complications of Clavien grades I (7%), II (3%), and IIIA (3%). There was no grade IV morbidity or mortality. Eighty-one donors responded to the questionnaire and SF-36. The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the donors had difficulty in the decision-making process, and suggested that it may be necessary to administer multistep informed consent. We identified unique predictive risk factors for lower SF-36 scores in the donors, which were the time to donation (more than 4 weeks) and the predonation self-oriented perception. The donors who have risk factors require enhanced pre- and post-donation psychological care.     

Living donor financial assistance programs in liver transplantation: The global perspective

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has increased availability of liver transplantation, particularly in countries with limited access to deceased organ donors. It is unclear how individual countries address the financial impact of donation for potential living donors. Herein, living liver donor financial supports were examined, focusing on countries performing ≥10 LDLT per year in the World Health Organization Transplant Observatory. Categories included health insurance coverage, reimbursement of lost wages, employment protection, and other incentives designed to promote living liver donation. Overall, 26 countries have some form of asssistance in removing disincentives to ease the financial burden of living donation, ranging from childcare, accommodations, meals, and travel reimbursement, to coverage of medical complications post-donation. Most countries provide donation-related medical coverage. Fourteen provide reimbursement of lost wages and/or paid time off. Several unique programs were designed to incentivize living donation, including free entry to museums and observatories, parking and airline discounts, and exemptions on mortgages and medical deductibles. This study highlights the broad range of programs designed to support living liver donation in high-volume LDLT countries. The data collected in this study can provide a framework for other nations to propose and implement ethical reimbursement and incentivization for living liver donors.     

Liver Regeneration and Splenic Enlargement in Donors after Living-Donor Liver Transplantation

Liver regeneration after donor hepactectomy offers a unique insight into the process of liver regeneration in normal livers. As the liver restores itself, concurrent splenic enlargement occurs. There are many theories about why this phenomenon takes place: some investigators have proposed a relative portal hypertension that leads to splenic congestion or, perhaps, the presence of a common growth factor that induces both the liver and spleen to enlarge. Between the months of June 2001 and May 2004, 112 live donor liver transplants (LDLTs) were performed in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. The total number of donor hepatectomies performed during this period was 113, however, because one of the cases required dual donors. Of our 113 donors, we eventually analyzed the data of 109; 4 patients were lost to follow-up 6 months later and were excluded from our study. The average age of our donor population was 32.32 ± 8.48 years. The mean liver volume at donation was noted to be 1207.72 ± 219.95 cm³, and 6 months later, it was 1027.18 ± 202.41 cm³. Expressed as a percentage of the original volume, the mean liver volume 6 months after hepatectomy was 90.70% ± 12.47% in this series. For right graft donors, mean liver volume after 6 months was 89.68% ± 12.37% of the original liver volume, whereas that for left graft donors was 91.99% ± 12.6%. Only 26 of the 109 (23.85%) donors were able to achieve full regeneration 6 months post-donation. Notably, liver function profiles of all donors were normal when measured 6 months after operation. The average splenic volume at donation as measured by computed tomography (CT) volumetry was 159 ± 58 cm³, and the splenic volume 6 months post-donation was 213 ± 85 cm³. There was a mean increment in splenic volume of 35% ± 28% 6 months after donation. The blood profiles of the donors were monitored; particular attention was given to platelet levels and liver function tests, and these were found to be within normal limits 6 months after operation. Of note, splenic enlargement was significantly greater among right-sided donors than their left-sided counterparts. Greater splenic enlargement was also observed in those donors who achieved full liver regeneration at their evaluation 6 months postoperatively than in those who did not. Although original liver volume was not re-established in most patients 6 months after liver donation, there seemed to have been no untoward effects to the donor. The factors that affect liver regeneration are complex and myriad. Although there is splenic enlargement at 6 months post-donation in donors of LDLT, there are no untoward effects of this enlargement.     

Impact of liver donation on quality of life and physical and psychological distress

Our objectives were to assess the characteristics of donors for living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to examine the impact of donation on LDLT donor quality of life (QOL) regarding physical and psychological distress. METHODS: Data were collected from a mailed survey or an interview using a cross-sectional prospective study design. We used the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF), Physical Symptom Disturbance Scale, and Psychological Distress Scale. LDLT donors were recruited from a teaching hospital located in a metropolitan area of northern Taiwan. RESULTS: The 35 LDLT donors have a mean age 34.0 +/- 8.6 years and were recruited at a median of 25.9 months after donation (range, 0.6-92 months). The average scores in the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF scale ranged from 13.5 to 14.9. LDLT Donors reported higher QOL scores in social and environment domains but lower scores in physical and psychological domains than healthy adults. Numbers of physical symptoms experienced by each donor ranged from one (n = 4) to 27 (n = 2). Feeling throbbing, itching or numbness around the wound was the most common physical symptom disturbance reported by donors (n = 26, 74%). Approximately 40% of the donors reported having one to three metrics of psychological distresses. "Easily feel distress and angry" was the most common psychological distress reported by 57% (n = 20) of donors. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that liver donation had a mild negative impact on donors physical and psychological facets of QOL. These results may assist professionals to provide appropriate clinical management.