Impact of live donor age (>or=50) on liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The question of whether donor age negatively impacts recipient outcome in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is rarely discussed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of older donor age (50 years or older) on recipient outcomes in adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: LDLT data were retrospectively evaluated from our 299 LDLT cases in 297 recipients, which were divided into 2 groups: a younger group (group Y, donor age<50, n=237) and an older group (Group O, donor age>or=50, n=62). Clinical parameters of both recipients and donors were comparable between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in patient survival or postoperative complications of either donors or recipients. In recipients, graft regeneration was significantly impaired in Group O. Graft function, including protein synthesis and cholestasis, was comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although the regeneration capacity of aged grafts was impaired, the function of grafts from older donors was comparable to that of those from younger donors. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the groups.     

Donor age in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: We sought to elucidate the influence of donor age in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using either left lobe (LL) or right lobe (RL) grafts. METHODS: Recipients (n = 232) were categorized as: group O/LL (LL, donor age >50, n = 20); group Y/LL (LL, donor age < or =50, n = 140); Group O/RL (RL, donor age >50, n = 12); and group Y/RL (RL, donor age < or =50, n = 61). We compared post-LDLT graft functions. RESULTS: Among LL LDLT, the incidence of small-for-size syndrome was significantly greater for group O/LL compared with group Y/LL (60.0% vs 16.3%, P < .01). However, the cumulative 5-year graft survivals were 73.8% in group O and 76.7% in group Y without substantial difference. In RL LDLT, the post-LDLT morbidity and mortality were similar for group O/RL and group Y/RL. CONCLUSION: Partial liver grafts, even though LL grafts, from older donors can be used safely with caution in LDLT.     

Segmental regeneration in right-lobe liver grafts in adult living donor liver transplant

Chen H‐L, Tsang LL‐C, Concejero AM, Huang T‐L, Chen T‐Y, Ou H‐Y, Yu C‐Y, Chen C‐L, Cheng Y‐F. Segmental regeneration in right‐lobe liver grafts in adult living donor liver transplant. Abstract:  Our aim is to evaluate the relationship and impact of right‐lobe (RL) liver grafts procured with or without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) trunk and MHV tributary reconstruction on segmental regeneration of these grafts in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT). Patients underwent primary ALDLT using a RL liver graft were divided into three groups according to graft type: with MHV tributary reconstruction (group I), without MHV tributary reconstruction (group II), and with inclusion of the MHV trunk (group III). The overall graft volume and the volumes of the anterior and posterior segments of the grafts six months post‐transplant, evaluated using computed tomography, were calculated as the regeneration indices. Optimal regeneration of the RL liver graft was achieved in the three groups of patients. There was no significant difference in the regeneration indices between groups I (149.4%) and III (143.6%). However, in group II (112.4%) without MHV or tributary reconstruction, the anterior regenerative index was lower than the other two groups and exhibited transient prolonged hyperbilirubinemia. Segmental graft regeneration is maximized by adequate venous drainage. Inclusion of the MHV trunk or MHV tributary reconstruction influences segmental liver regeneration and preclude transient hyperbilirubinemia in the early post‐liver transplant phase.     

Safe donor hepatectomy for living related liver transplantation

Minimizing the risk of donor hepatectomy while preserving graft viability is an important concern in living related liver transplantation. This report describes clinical outcomes for living donor hepatectomy with reference to the type of hepatectomy. Donor hepatectomy was performed in 130 consecutive living donors. They were divided into three groups: left lateral or extended left lateral segmentectomy (group S; n = 50), left hepatectomy with or without caudate lobe or right lateral resection (group L; n = 64), and right hepatectomy (group R; n = 16). Intraoperative and postoperative data were examined and compared among the groups. No critical complications were observed in any group. However, there were differences in donor age, surgical and ischemia times, volume of blood loss, graft weight, and aspartate aminotransferase level elevation among the groups. Livers showed a substantial increase in volume, tending to the standard liver volume 1 month after surgery. Regardless of the extent of donor hepatectomy, serious complications did not occur after surgery. Surgical risk for a living donor is minimal if the operation is performed by experienced surgeons using present procedures. (Liver Transpl 2002;8:58-62.)     

Impact of donor age and recipient status on left-lobe graft for living donor adult liver transplantation.

Donor safety is the priority when performing a living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT). We herein present our findings using left-lobe graft in LDALT. Data on 119 recipients who underwent the LDALT, and on 119 donors who underwent extended left lobectomy were reviewed. The recipients were divided into groups above (n = 19) and below (n = 100) 50 years of donor age, into groups above (n = 63) and below (n = 56) 40% of graft size (graft volume/standard liver volume, GV/SLV), and above (n = 25) and below (n = 94) 20 of pre-operative model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). Total bilirubin (TB), volume of ascites, prothrombin time international normalized ratio on postoperative day 14 or survival rates were compared. TB (mg/dl) or volume of ascites (ml) of the group in donor age < 50 years was better than that of the group in donor age > or = 50 years (7.4 vs. 14.7 or 788 vs. 1379, P < 0.001 or P < 0.005, respectively). The graft and patient survival rates of the lower MELD group tended to be better than that of the higher MELD group. LDALT can be safely performed using a left-lobe graft. However, when using the graft from the donor > or = 50 years, especially for the recipients with the MELD > or = 20, the indications should be carefully discussed.     

Graft size assessment and analysis of donors for living donor liver transplantation using right lobe

BACKGROUND: Modality of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been expanded to adult cases. However, the safety of right lobectomy from living donors has not yet been proven. METHODS: A total of 62 cases of LDLT, using the right lobe, were reviewed. Study 1: Discrepancy between estimated graft volume and actual graft weight was evaluated. Study 2: Postoperative liver functions were analyzed in relation to residual liver volume (RLV) or age. Residual liver volume of donors was defined using two indices, (RLV = estimated whole liver volume - estimated graft volume and %RLV = RLV/estimated whole liver volumex100). Donors were divided into two groups on the basis of either %RLV (<40%; 40%< or =) or age (<50 years old; 50 years old < or =). Study 3: Right lobe donors were compared with left lobe donors (35 cases) in terms of their postoperative liver functions. RESULTS: Study 1: The relationship between estimated graft volume and actual graft weight was linear (y=159.136+0.735x, R2=0.571, P<0.001). Study 2: %RLV ranged from 23.5% to 55.8% (mean +/- SD: 43.2+/-6.0). Fifteen cases showed %RLV less than 40%. Postoperative bilirubin clearance was delayed in that group (%RLV<40%). Serum total bilirubin values on postoperative day 7 in the older group (age > or =50) were significantly higher than those in the younger group (age<50). Study 3: Postoperative liver functions of right lobe donors were significantly higher than those of left-lobe donors. Eleven donors (17.7%) had surgical complications, all of which were cured with proper treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Right lobectomy from living donors is a safe procedure with acceptable morbidity, but some care should be taken early after the operation for donors with small residual liver and aged donors.     

The impact of donor and recipient age on the outcome of kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: As survival has improved in the general population over the last few decades, the age of patients participating in renal transplantation has also increased. This study sought to investigate the impact of donor and recipient age as predictors of long-term graft survival in renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed transplantation outcomes in 598 patients who received renal transplants from 1979 to 2002. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to their age at renal transplantation. Group A (donor age <50 years, recipient age >50 years, n = 19/3.2%); group B (donor age >50 years, recipient age <50 years, n = 153/25.5%); group C (donor age <50 years, recipient age >50 years, n = 69/11.6%), and group D (donor age <50 years, recipient age <50 years, n = 357/59.8%). Univariate analysis to assess the effect of donor and recipient age as predictor factors of graft outcome was complimented by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods to assess graft survival with P < 1.05 considered significant. RESULTS: In the elderly donor group, graft survival was 92.8% at 1 year and 85.6% at 3 years; in the younger donor group, they were 93.4% and 90.2%, respectively, a difference that was statistically significant (P = .02). Univariate analysis of age factors showed a significant reduction in graft survival among recipients who received kidneys transplants from donors older than 50 years, although recipient age >50 years was not found to be an independent risk factor. The incidence of acute rejection was 24.6% in the elderly donor group and 23.5% in the younger donor group (P = not significant). Among the 4 groups, the best result was group D with 1-year and 3-year graft survival rates of 93.3% and 90.5%, respectively, but this result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help the design for transplantation strategies for kidneys procured from elderly donors and for allocation to elderly recipients.     

Regeneration and function of hemiliver graft: right versus left

BACKGROUND: A right liver graft used almost routinely for adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), is associated with a higher incidence of morbidity and mortality in the donor. We compared volume regeneration and graft function between left and right liver grafts to examine the feasibility of using left liver grafts. METHODS: The left liver was considered acceptable as a graft when it was estimated to be over 40% of the recipient standard liver volume. Otherwise, right liver harvesting was used, provided the estimated right liver volume was less than 70% of the donor's standard liver volume. Graft volume on computed tomography and the results of liver function tests 1, 3, and 12 months after LDLT were compared between recipients with left (n = 76) and right (n = 83) grafts. Possible factors influencing graft regeneration were evaluated by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A higher regeneration rate in the left liver graft group resulted in the same ratio of graft to standard liver volume as in the right liver graft group (88% vs 87%) 1 year after LDLT. Liver function tests and 5-year survival rates were comparable between the 2 groups. An episode of acute rejection was a predictive factor for impaired graft regeneration 1 month after LDLT. The initial ratio of graft volume to standard liver volume was an independent factor for regeneration 1 year after LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: A properly evaluated left liver graft can be used as safely as a right liver graft in adult-to-adult LDLT. The findings of the present study justify LDLT with a left liver graft under specific selection criteria and may be preferred to a right liver graft.     

Implication of advanced donor age on the outcome of liver transplantation

Historically, age has been considered to be a relative contraindication for organ donors. The use of elderly donors for liver transplantation remains controversial due to the fear of inferior outcome. According to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data, the proportion of older donors has been increasing annually. This study describes the short‐ and long‐term outcomes for transplantation of elderly donor livers. Three hundred and seventy‐four primary liver transplantations, which had been performed at the University of Virginia Health System from 7 February 1988 to 31 December 1998, were included. Graft survival, incidence of primary non‐function, and hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) after transplantation according to the different age groups of liver donors were analyzed. Cases were analyzed by donor age (group I, n=106: aged <20 yr; group II, n=217: aged between 20 and 49 yr; group III, n=51: aged ≥50 yr), and by donor age in comparison with recipient age (group IV, n=65: recipients transplanted with organs from donors within 5 yr of their age; group V, n=266: recipients from donors> 5 yr younger than their age; group VI, n=43: recipients from donors> 5 yr older than their age). Group III or VI (group of advanced donor age) and group II or V (control group) were compared by age, gender, race, body weight, height, pre‐transplantation cytomegalovirus (CMV) status of the recipients donors, cause of brain death of donors, total or warm ischemic time, ABO matching, and degree of human leucocyte antigen (HLA) mismatching. No significant difference in 5 yr graft survival was found between the groups by donor age (p=0.604) and by donor age compared with recipient age (p=0.567). Moreover, no significant differences in the incidence of primary non‐function and HAT after transplantation were found between the groups by donor age and by donor age compared with recipient age. Older donors were more likely to be women and to have antibodies to CMV, as well as to have died by cerebrovascular causes. Race, body weight, height of both recipients and donors, total or warm ischemic time of grafts, ABO matching, and degree of HLA mismatching were not significantly different between the groups. We conclude from this study that advanced donor age is not a contraindication to liver transplantation if careful assessment of donors is made on a case‐by‐case basis. There is a need to maintain an open mind with regard to the use of livers from older donors due to the current situation of serious organ shortages.     

Adult living donor liver transplantation using the right lobe

BACKGROUND: This article reviewed our experience with right lobe donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantations (LDLT), particularly in the context of preserving donor safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to August 2005, we performed 206 adult LDLT operations using the right lobe. The donor characteristics, operative findings, postoperative results including the peak values of liver enzymes (aspartate transferase [AST], alanine transferase [ALT], and bilirubin) and regeneration volumes, as evaluated by computed tomography volumetry, were reviewed at 1 week, as well as 3 and 6 months after surgery. The effects of three risk factors on donor safety were analyzed: age (<55 years, > or =55 years): fatty change in the donor liver (<10%, > or =10%); and remnant volume (<35%, > or =35%). RESULTS: The liver enzymes and regeneration volumes showed no significant difference according to age, only ALT was significant increased associated with the severity of fatty change (P < .05). There were significant differences in postoperative AST, ALT, and regeneration volume between the group with <35% and the group with > or =35% remnant liver volume (P < .05). Upon further analysis with combinations of two out of three risk factors, the group according to remnant volume and fatty change was meaningful. Follow-up data on donor ALT showed a return normal levels and after postoperative 3 months there was regeneration of the remnant liver to more than 70% of the whole liver preoperatively. There was no donor mortality, but postoperative complications were observed in 39 patients (39/206, 18.9%). Biliary complications were encountered in 24 patients: one bile duct injury, 22 bile leakages, and one bile duct stricture. Other complications consisted of pleural effusion (n = 8), delayed gastric emptying (n = 6), atelectasis (n = 1), and hepatic encephalopathy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: In cases of careful donor selection, a right lobectomy can be performed safely with minimal risks when the remnant liver volume exceeds 35% of the total liver volume and shows less than 10% fatty changes.     

Risk factors for graft dysfunction after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for graft dysfunction after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Thirty-nine adults with chronic cirrhosis underwent LDLT between 1999 and 2004. Their postoperative courses were uneventful with no vascular or bile duct complications early after LDLT, except one mild hepatic artery stenosis. The preoperative MELD scores were significantly higher in the failed graft group (n=5) than the functioning graft group (n=34; P=.004), while the graft liver weight/standard liver volume ratio was similar between these groups. We concluded that a high preoperative MELD score was associated with postoperative graft failure and that graft size had little impact on graft outcome. Although large grafts would seem intuitively more suitable for sick recipients, we did not show a benefit among this cohort; the MELD score was the best predictor, a finding that is also most consistent with donor safety.     

Outcome of liver transplantation using donors older than 60 year of age

Serrano MT, Garcia‐Gil A, Arenas J, Ber Y, Cortes L, Valiente C, Araiz JJ. Outcome of liver transplantation using donors older than 60 year of age.
Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 543–549.
© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: The impact of donor age on liver transplantation has been analyzed in several studies with contradictory results. Our aim was to evaluate graft survival and complications in the first year after liver transplantations with livers from older donors. Methods: Prospective analysis of 149 consecutive primary liver transplantations performed between 2000 and 2005. Transplantations were divided into two groups according to donor age: group A, <60 yr old (n = 102); and group B, ≥60 yr old (n = 47). Results: Chronic and acute rejection, vascular complications, and infections were not statistically different between the groups. Anastomotic biliary strictures were similar in the two groups, but non‐anastomotic biliary strictures (NABS) were clearly more frequent in the older donor group (17% vs. 4.9%; OR 3.9; p = 0.025). NABS with no arterial complication was diagnosed in 10.6% of cases in group B vs. 1% in group A (OR = 12; p = 0.012). Graft survival in the first year was 86.67% in the younger group of donors and 71.43% in the older group (p < 0.05), but patient survival was not different. Conclusions: The use of grafts from donors ≥60 yr decreased graft survival after liver transplantation and was related to a higher frequency of non‐anastomotic biliary strictures.     

Small-sized liver graft does not increase the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after living donor liver transplantation

PURPOSE: Following implantation into adult recipients, living donor liver grafts usually undergo liver regeneration. This regeneration process may provoke the growth of occult hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells in the recipient body. To assess the risk of HCC recurrence, we analyzed the influence of graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR). METHODS: The 181 recipients with HCC within the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria were divided into four groups according to GRWR: low GRWR (<0.8; n = 30), mid GRWR (0.8-1.0; n = 65), high GRWR (>1.0; n = 64), and whole liver graft group (>1.5; n = 22). RESULTS: There were no differences in overall patient survival (P = .105) and recurrence-free survival (P = .406) among these four groups. GRWR <0.8 was not a significant risk factor for HCC recurrence. Similar outcomes were obtained in HCC patients who met the Milan criteria (n = 170). CONCLUSIONS: We think that small living donor liver graft and subsequent liver regeneration do not increase the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence when HCC is within the Milan or UCSF criteria.     

Relationship between portal venous flow and liver regeneration in patients after living donor right-lobe liver transplantation

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between portal venous (PV) velocity and degree of liver regeneration in humans after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between July 1997 and September 2002, a total of 15 adult-to-adult LDLTs with right-lobe grafts were performed, and 13 of these patients were enrolled in this study. Postoperative PV dynamics differed according to the primary liver disease; therefore, patients were divided into two groups: a fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) group (n = 4) and a liver cirrhosis (LC) group (n = 9). Right-lobe donors (n = 13; D group) were used as controls. Doppler ultrasound was used to measured changes in PV velocity preoperatively; postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28; and 3 months after LDLT. To assess hepatic regeneration, the increase in liver volume ratio (postoperative liver volume to standard liver volume [SLV]) was measured. PV velocity after LDLT in the LC group increased sharply until POD 7, whereas those in the FHF and D groups were constant. In the first 3 months after LDLT, mean PV velocity was greater in the LC group than the other groups, reflecting the persistent hyperdynamic state in chronic end-stage liver disease. Liver regeneration also was more rapid in the LC group than the FHF and D groups and reached 100% as early as 2 weeks posttransplantation, whereas both the FHF and D livers reached approximately 80% of SLV at 3 months. PV velocity POD 7 correlated significantly with regeneration of the partial-liver allograft at 1 month (r = 0.84; P = .0091). In conclusion, the PV persistent hyperdynamic state in the LC group could directly trigger early liver regeneration in partial-liver allografts after LDLT. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:547-551.)     

Small remnant liver volume after right lobe living donor hepatectomy

BACKGROUND: Right lobe living donor liver transplantation has become a viable option for adult patients with end-stage liver disease, however, the safety of the donor is of paramount importance. One of the key factors in donor safety is ensuring adequate donor remnant liver volume. METHODS: We retrospectively examined donors who had less than 30% remnant liver volume after right graft procurement. Eighty-six right lobe living donor transplants were carried out in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical Center, from January 1999 to December 2004. RESULTS: Eight donors had less than 30% remnant liver volume (Group 1) after graft procurement and 78 donors had remnant liver volume greater than 30% (Group 2). There were no differences in donor characteristics, types of graft, operative parameters, and post-operative liver and renal function as well as liver volume at 6 months post-donation between the 2 groups. The graft weight obtained in Group 1 donors was significantly greater compared with that from Group 2 (P<.005). The overall donor complication rate was 6.98%, and all the complications occurred among group 2 donors. CONCLUSIONS: The judicious use of donors with less than 30% remnant liver volume is safe as a last resort.     

Small graft for living donor liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of graft size on recipients in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to establish a clinical guideline for the minimum requirement. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although the minimum graft size required for LDLT has been reported to be 30% to 40% of graft volume (GV)/standard liver volume (SLV), the safety limit of the graft size was unknown. METHODS: A total of 33 cases of LDLT, excluding auxiliary transplantation, were reviewed with a minimum observation period of 4 months. The 33 patients were divided into three groups according to GV/SLV: medium-size graft group, small-size graft group, and extra-small graft group. The effect of GV/SLV on graft function, graft regeneration, and survival was evaluated. RESULTS: The overall patient survival rate was 94% at a mean follow-up of 15 months with a minimum observation period of 4 months. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative bilirubin clearance, alanine aminotransferase, prothrombin time, and frequency of postoperative complications among the three groups. One week after transplantation, the regeneration rate (GV at 1 week/harvested GV) in the extra-small and small groups was significantly higher than that of the medium group. The graft and patient survival rates were both 100% in the extra-small group, 75% and 88% in the small group, and 90% and 95% in the medium group. CONCLUSIONS: Small-for-size grafts less than 30% of SLV can be used with careful intraoperative and postoperative management until the grafts regenerate.     

Living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure: a 10-year experience in a single center

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation has become an accepted treatment for various terminal liver diseases. STUDY DESIGN: Forty-two living donor liver transplantations performed for acute liver failure during a 10-year period at Kyushu University Hospital were reviewed. RESULTS: Causes of liver failure included hepatitis B (n=12), hepatitis C (n=1), autoimmune hepatitis (n=2), Wilson's disease (n=3), and unknown causes (n=24). The graft types were: left lobe (n=33), right lobe (n=8), and lateral segment (n=1). The mean graft volume to standard liver volume ratios were 42.2+/-9.2% in left lobe grafts and 50.5+/-3.9% in right lobe grafts (p < 0.05). Extubation was significantly delayed in grade IV encephalopathy patients (73.7 +/-18.2 hours) compared with patients with other grades (p < 0.01 to grades I and II, p < 0.05 to grade III). All other patients, except one with a subarachnoid hemorrhage, had complete neurologic recovery after transplantation. The 1- and 10-year survival rates were 77.6% and 65.5%, respectively, for grafts, and 80.0% and 68.2%, respectively, for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure are fairly acceptable despite severe general conditions and emergent transplant settings. Living donor liver transplantation is now among the currently accepted life-saving treatments of choice for acute liver failure, although innovative medical treatments for this disease entity are still anticipated.     

The impact of sex and age matching for long-term graft survival in living donor renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Deficient functional renal mass leads to progressive renal injury owing to the detrimental effects of glomerular hyperfiltration. Therefore, renal transplant mass is an important determinant of outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 614 living donor renal transplantations performed from 1979 to 2002. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to donor-recipient gender differences: group 1 (male to male), group 2 (male to female), group 3 (female to male), and group 4 (female to female). We analyzed the clinical and immunological data to compare the 4 groups with respect to long-term graft survival, age gender, acute rejection episodes an HLA matching. We used the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test to assess graft survival. RESULTS: The actuarial graft survival rate was 86.24% at 5 years for donors younger than 50 years of age compared with 73.15% for those older than 50 years (P = .0000). The graft survival from younger donors than recipients was 85.23% at 5 years compared with 80.35% for older donors (P = .0213). The graft survival of group 3 (female donor to male recipient) was 75.12% at 5 years compared with 85.72%, 85.33%, and 83.16% for groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively (P = .0165). The main parameters significantly associated with graft survival were donor age (P = .0000), acute rejection episode (P = .0000), donor gender (P = .0215). HLA-DR matching (P = .0516), and donor and recipient age matching (P = .0213). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the sex and age matching between donors and recipients should be considered as a criterion in the choice of donor and recipient pairs for living donor renal transplantation.     

Graft outcomes of living donor renal transplantations in elderly recipients

BACKGROUND: Despite the ever-lengthening renal transplant waiting lists, without more donors, living donors serve as a treatment option for patients on dialysis. In the past, patients of advanced age were not considered to be candidates for living donor renal transplantation. Therefore, this study sought to analyze whether older age affects the outcome of living donor renal transplantation. METHODS: A total of 527 primary living donor renal transplantations were performed between January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2006. The subjects were divided into 2 subgroups based on patient age at the time of transplantation. The elder group included all recipients at least 60 years vs the control group of younger patients. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in readmission rate (elder group, 44%; young group, 31.33%; P = .031) and patient survival rate (P < .001). No significant difference was noted in graft survival rate (P = .201), acute rejection rate (elder group, 10.6%; young group, 13.3%; P = .7), serum creatinine level, or length of stay (elder group, 8.51 days; young group, 6.31 days; P = .083). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that elder patients may benefit from living donor renal transplantation.