Feasibility of using marginal liver grafts in living donor liver transplantation

Table 4 Older donors for living donor liver transplantation

Ref.	Definition of older donors	n (older vs young)	One-year survival (older vs young)	Five-year survival (older vs young)	Study type
Tanemura et al[58] (2012)	50 yr old	101 (24 vs 77)	Older donor livers might have impaired regenerative ability		RS
Ono et al[60] (2011)	50 yr old	15 (6 vs 9)	Liver regeneration is impaired with age after donor hepatectomy		RS
Akamatsu et al[61] (2007)	50 yr old	299 (62 vs 237)	85.0% vs 93.0%	72.0% vs 87.0%	RS
Kawano et al[62] (2014)	NS	12	Donor age is a crucial factor affecting telomere length sustainability in hepatocytes after pediatric LDLT		PS
Imamura et al[63] (2017)	NS	198	A worse outcome might be associated with aging of the donor		RS
Dayangac et al[64] (2011)	50 yr old	150 (28 vs 122)	78.6% vs 83.4%	NS	RS
Yoshizumi et al[65] (2008)	NS	28	Graft size, donor age, and patient status are the indicators of early graft function		RS
Han et al[66] (2014)	55 yr old	604 (26 vs 578)	Median OS (M): 31.2 ± 31.3 vs 50.6 ± 40.6		RS
Kamo et al[67] (2015)	60 yr old	1597 (69 vs 1528)	69.5% vs 81.2%	62.0% vs 79.3%	RS
Shin et al[68] (2013)	Donor-recipient age gradient > 20	821	Worse graft survival was observed if the donor is older than the recipient by > 20		RS
Kubota et al[69] (2017)	50 yr old	315 (126vs 189)	73.0% vs 80.9%	39.7% vs 47.1%	RS
Katsuragawa et al[70]	NS	24	G/SLV and donor age were independent factors that affected graft survival rates		RS
Wang et al[72] (2015)	50 yr old	159 (10 vs 149)	100% vs 93.0%	90.0% vs 87.0%	RS
Ikegami et al[73] (2008)	50 yr old	232 (32 vs 200)	80.0% vs 81.7%	73.8% vs 76.7%	RS
Li et al[74] (2012)	50 yr old	129 (21 vs 108)	90.0% vs 86.0%	66.0% vs 75%	RS
Goldaracena et al[75] (2016)	50 yr old	469 (91 vs 378)	92.0% vs 96.0%	83.0% vs 79.0%	RS
Kim et al[76] (2017)	55 yr old	540 (42 vs 498)	95.2% vs 94.6%	NS	RS

LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation; CR: Case report; RS: Retrospective study.