Abstract
Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been proposed in many countries to reduce organ shortage. While the early postoperative outcomes have been well investigated, little is known about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. We, therefore, designed a systematic review of the literature to explore long-term complications and quality of life among living donors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE registries for studies published since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation, concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. A total of 2505 papers were initially identified. After a thorough selection, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria. The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 11.5 years. The most common complications were incision site discomfort (13.2–38.8%) and psychiatric disorders (1–22%). Biliary strictures occurred in 1–14% of cases. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy could improve quality of life, but long-term data are limited. About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Although the reported studies seem to confirm long-term donor safety, further research is needed to address the real-life long-term impact of this procedure.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for patients suffering from end-stage liver disease and selected cases of primary and secondary liver tumors. However, the shortage of deceased donors has resulted in many patients being unable to receive a transplant. Along with the use of livers with extended criteria from deceased donors, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been increasingly proposed as a possible solution to this problem.
The first successful LDLT was performed in 1990 on a child by Strong et al., followed by the first successful transplant on an adult by Hashikura et al. in 1993 [1, 2]. Ensuring the safety of both the donor and the recipient has always been a top priority in LDLT. The use of the right liver graft without the middle hepatic vein has been classically preferred, thus balancing the safety of the donor with the need for a sufficient graft volume in the recipient [3,4,5]. Nevertheless, advancements in surgical technique have led to increased use of left liver grafts in the past few years, to better ensure donor safety. Minimally invasive techniques have also been adopted to reduce the impact of the donor procedure.
The safety of living donors has been extensively investigated in the context of in-hospital care and short-term follow-up. The death of a donor is the most tragic and devastating complication for the donor’s family, the recipient, and the transplant team. In Europe and the United States, the reported in-hospital rate of donor death is 0.2%, while complication rates range from 15 to 40% in the first year post-donation [6, 7]. However, despite being almost 35 years since the first liver transplant from a living donor, the long-term effects on donors remain uncertain due to several factors, such as small sample sizes, high loss to follow-up, and recall bias. Nevertheless, this information is critical to promote living donation, provide potential donors with accurate information, and assess the adherence of this practice to the Hippocratic principle of first do no harm. We have therefore carried out a systematic review of the literature to investigate long-term mortality, complications, and quality of life among donors of LDLT.
Methods
Study selection
This systematic review was performed following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The following string was used to search from MEDLINE and EMBASE registry: ((liver) AND (living donor)) AND (follow-up). The query was performed on August 26, 2023. Publication titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened independently by two authors (R.D.C and G.D.L).
Eligibility criteria
Only studies published in English in the last 10 years since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation were included. Inclusion criteria were retrospective or prospective studies specifically related to the liver-living donors’ follow-up concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year (mean or median) or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. Additionally, previous reviews on the topic were removed. Abstracts, letters to the editor, case reports, and small case series (i.e., less than 20 cases) were screened for relevant information but excluded from the summary table. Duplicates and partially duplicate series were also removed.
Data extraction
Data extracted included authors, publication year, country, type of study, number of patients, follow-up, incidence of early complications, biliary complications, incisional hernia, QoL indicators, and other long-term complications.
Results
A total of 2505 papers were initially identified (1136 from MEDLINE and 1369 from EMBASE). Before the screening, 460 duplicates, 29 papers in foreign languages, and 60 abstracts were removed. In the first screening, 1836 papers were excluded because not relevant to the study’s intended scope. Furthermore, 7 articles were excluded as review articles, 17 as case reports, and 1 due to the unavailability of its full text. This thorough selection process resulted in 95 papers that were assessed for eligibility. In the end, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria for this review. A detailed PRISMA Flowchart summarises the entire process (Fig. 1).
The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Sampling size showed a wide range of sizes from 42 to 12,371 participants, providing a broad cross-section to be examined. Moreover, inter-study follow-up periods were quite variable, ranging from a median of 1 to 11.5 years. Each study reported different long-term outcomes. Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the included studies. Biliary complications (both leakage and strictures), incisional hernia, and incision site discomfort were the most frequently reported complications.
Biliary complications
Bile duct complications are a significant concern for both the donor and recipient after LDLT. However, many studies primarily focus on short-term complications, particularly bile leakage after donor hepatectomy [8, 9]. Depending on different transplant centers and types of hepatectomy performed, the incidence of donors’ bile leakage appears to range between 5 and 15% and is typically detected in the early postoperative phase [10]. Ruh et al. found that a margin of less than 5 mm from the main duct and multiple hepatic arteries increases the donors' risk of bile leak [11]. This is because division near the main duct can easily damage it, and grafts with multiple arteries require more extensive dissection, which can affect the blood supply and increase the risk of ischemic injury of the main duct.
Bile duct strictures may complicate donor hepatectomy and persist over time [11]. This condition can develop due to surgical trauma, ischemia, or inflammation during the donor procedure. It may also arise from delayed healing or the formation of scar tissue around the bile duct [12]. Having multiple ducts in the graft does not seem to increase the risk of biliary strictures in the donor, while an early bile leakage raises the risk of develo** strictures in the long term [11]. The included studies reported a short-term biliary complication rate between 1 and 5.6% [13, 14]. Only in a few cases (up to 1.7% according to Berglund et al.), the complication persisted during the follow-up period. In these instances, this resulted in hospital readmissions, invasive procedures, and, in rare cases, additional surgical operations [13, 15, 16].
An intriguing paper by Lin et al. examined the lifetime risk of biliary disease after liver donation by comparing the hospital admission rate for biliary disease after liver donation with the corresponding rate in the general population. The study reported that liver-living donors have a lifetime risk of develo** biliary tract disease of 49.7% (95% confidence interval: 10.8–46.1%) [17]. In a relatively small series by Tejura et al., expert radiologists reviewed long-term magnetic-resonance scans of living donors and found that up to 60% of donors had dilated intrahepatic ducts and 69% had orphan ducts. However, none of the donors reported any related symptoms [18].
Incisional hernia and incision site discomfort
Since recent years with the advent of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), living donor hepatectomy was possible only through a subcostal or J-shaped laparotomy, providing a significant risk of develo** an incisional hernia [19,20,21]. Among the included studies, incisional hernia ranged between 0.6 and 8.4% [15, 22,23,24]. Incisional hernia following donor hepatectomy can engender patient discomfort, and pain, necessitate hospital readmission, and potentially culminate in elective or urgent surgical intervention [25, 26]. Looking at the reintervention rate among the included studies, three patients underwent elective incisional hernia repair in the study of Raza et al., while Berglund et al. reported only one incisional hernia repair 18 months after donation [15, 23].
As well as in MILS, also in minimally invasive organ procurement, either laparoscopic or robotic, the incidence of incisional hernia seems to be decreasing [27]. It is difficult to find data on the long-term incidence of incisional hernia for living donor hepatectomy with MILS, given its relatively recent introduction [28]. Only two studies included in the analysis had a follow-up of more than one year after minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, and neither of them reported the rate of incisional hernia at the port or extraction site. [14, 29]. Nevertheless, a recent consensus conference has recommended MILS over the conventional open approach for donor hepatectomy to improve long-term incisional complications [30].
Another possible long-term complication that has been reported is incision site discomfort, which persists during the follow-up time and, in a few cases, leads to incision site surgical revision [13]. According to a survey conducted by the University of Minnesota, incisional discomfort is the most common persistent symptom experienced by liver donors, with a 34% incidence over a median follow-up of 7 years [31]. It is likely that also this complication can be reduced with MILS [30].
Mental health outcomes, quality of life, and suicide
Given that donors accrue no direct physical benefits from the surgery they undergo, substantial attention is directed towards the assessment of physical postoperative complications. Regrettably, even over extended durations, psychological outcomes are frequently overlooked.
Shizuku et al. reported, during a 4-year follow-up, a 3.1% onset of psychiatric disorders in living donors, including major depressive disorders, panic disorders, conversion, and substance use disorders. Interestingly, the median duration from surgery to psychiatric disorders was 104.5 days and half of cases also experienced a postoperative complication, such as bile stricture. The psychiatric disorder burden leads to the need for pharmacological treatment and psychotherapy of at least 3 months, and half of the patients were still in treatment after a median follow-up of 4 years [32]. In another study from Dew et al., similar results have been observed. Depression, anxiety, and alcohol use were reported in 96 (21%) donors, at least one time during a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Moreover, the researchers investigated the possible association with postoperative recovery and found that longer post-donation hospitalization, female sex, and high BMI were predictors of psychiatric disorders [33]. Severe psychological disorders have been found to correlate with negative recipient outcomes, although not all studies support this link [33, 34].
Quality of life (QoL) can be another important outcome to assess during donors’ follow-up [35]. In the included studies, most donors reported a decrease in scores in both physical and psychological domains in the early postoperative period. However, 6 months after donation, their scores aligned with those of the general population [22, 23, 36]. In a minor group, including donors who experienced recipient death after transplant, who retrospectively told about donation regret, or who were not supported by their relatives about their choice, persistent lower scores in fatigue, chronic pain, and psychological distress were reported [13, 15, 23, 34]. The impact of MILS on QoL has also been investigated, but only two studies have used standardized questionnaires to assess QoL [30, 37, 38]. One of these studies found no significant difference in body image between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy using an upper midline incision [37]. The other study showed that QoL was significantly improved at 4 weeks after laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy compared to open surgery [38]. However, the advantage may not be sustained in the long term as there was no difference in scoring just 6 months after donation.
The occurrence of suicide among living liver donors has prompted significant concern within the medical community. In a study by Trotter et al., two suicides were reported 22 and 23 months post-donation, along with one suicide attempt, among 392 liver donors in the US [39]. Subsequently, a global survey led by Cheah et al. reported 23 deaths out of 1553 living donors, translating to an all-cause mortality rate of 0.2% during the entire follow-up. Three of these deaths (13%) were attributed to suicide, one occurring two months after donation, and the other two occurring 4 and 5 years later [40]. The etiology of these suicides cannot be directly linked to liver donation, as underlying issues or predispositions may have existed before donation or could be attributable to other causes. Nevertheless, the incidence of suicides reported by Trotter et al. was significantly higher compared to the national rate in the US [39]. More recently, Choi et al.’s study in Korea further emphasized this concern, reporting two suicides within 6 months and 3 additional cases within 1 year in a cohort of 12,371 donors [41]. Moreover, this study revealed a higher risk of death from intentional self-harm among liver donors compared to matched healthy controls [HR 1.94 (1.21–3.09)]. Yet, given that suicide is a leading cause of death among individuals under 40 in Korea, caution is warranted in interpreting these findings.
Pregnancy after living donation
Although the pregnancy of liver transplant recipients has been reported in detail, pregnancy in living donors has not yet been thoroughly studied. In 2007, Lin et al. reported a living donor left lateral segmentectomy in a pregnant woman at 18 weeks of gestation. The recipient was her 1-year-old child. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the mother gave birth to a healthy term baby without any complications 5 months later [42]. Soon after, Soyama et al. reported 2 pregnancies within 6 months of right lobe donation without complications [43].
According to a Japanese survey investigating all LDLT cases in Japan in 2003, sexual dysfunction or menstrual irregularity has been reported in 1.7% and 2.7% of the cases, respectively. Anxiety about pregnancy or delivery among female donors has also been reported [44]. In a recent multi‐institutional survey of 6 US transplant centers including 276 women who underwent living liver donation, one-fifth of women who attempted pregnancy after liver donation reported infertility. However, the majority (74%) eventually went on to successful live births, and, aside from increased reporting of abnormal liver enzymes and cesarean deliveries, there was no significant difference in pregnancy outcomes before and after living liver donation [45].
Conclusions
About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Long-term mortality rates for living donors are similar to those of the general population, though recent evidence indicates that survival outcomes may be worse than those of healthy individuals. The main sources of morbidity in the long term are incisional discomfort and psychological disorders. The incidence of these conditions varies extensively among different studies, and, as in the case of psychological disorders, it is often difficult to link them directly to the donation. Nevertheless, living donors should receive ongoing medical and psychological care after donation. MILS for donor hepatectomy could potentially improve QoL and reduce incisional discomfort. However, data on the long-term follow-up are still limited. Further studies are needed to address the real-life long-term impact of living liver donation.
Availability of data and materials
Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Abbreviations
- LDLT:
-
Living donor liver transplantation
- MILS:
-
Minimally invasive liver surgery
- QoL:
-
Quality of life
References
Strong RW, Lynch SV, Ong TH et al (1990) Successful liver transplantation from a living donor to her son. N Engl J Med 322:1505–1507. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199005243222106
Hashikura Y, Makuuchi M, Kawasaki S et al (1994) Successful living-related partial liver transplantation to an adult patient. Lancet 343:1233–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92450-3
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL et al (1997) Extending the limit on the size of adult recipient in living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe graft. Transplantation 63:1524–1528. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199705270-00027
Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL et al (1997) Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using extended right lobe grafts. Ann Surg 226:261–269. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199709000-00005.
Lauterio A, Di Sandro S, Gruttadauria S et al (2017) Donor safety in living donor liver donation: an Italian multicenter survey. Liver Transpl 23:184–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/LT.24651
Manas D, Burnapp L, Andrews PA (2016) Summary of the British transplantation society UK guidelines for living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 100:1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001128
Miller CM, Durand F, Heimbach JK et al (2016) The international liver transplant society guideline on living liver donation. Transplantation 100:1238–1243. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001247
Hong SK, Kim J-Y, Lee J et al (2023) Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: experience of 556 cases at Seoul National University Hospital. Am J Transplant. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJT.2023.06.007
Bonaccorsi-Riani E, Daudré-Vignier V, Ciccarelli O et al (2023) Improving safety in living liver donation: lessons from intraoperative adverse events in 438 donors undergoing a left liver resection. Transplant Direct 9:E1531. https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001531
Braun HJ, Ascher NL, Roll GR, Roberts JP (2016) Biliary complications following living donor hepatectomy. Transplant Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trre.2016.07.003
Rhu J, Choi GS, Kim JM et al (2023) Risk factors associated with surgical morbidities of laparoscopic living liver donors. Ann Surg 278:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005851
Cantù P, Mauro A, Cassinotti E et al (2020) Post-operative biliary strictures. Dig Liver Dis 52:1421–1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DLD.2020.07.026
Darwish Murad S, Fidler JL, Poterucha JJ et al (2016) Longterm clinical and radiological follow-up of living liver donors. Liver Transplant. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.24442
Schulze M, Elsheikh Y, Boehnert MU et al (2022) Robotic surgery and liver transplantation: a single-center experience of 501 robotic donor hepatectomies. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 21:334–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbpd.2022.05.006
Berglund D, Kirchner V, Pruett T et al (2018) Complications after living donor hepatectomy: analysis of 176 cases at a single center. J Am Coll Surg 227:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.03.007
Takagi K, Umeda Y, Yoshida R et al (2020) Short-term and long-term outcomes in living donors for liver transplantation: cohort study. Int J Surg 84:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2020.11.013
Lin S-Y, Lin C-L, Hsu W-H et al (2020) Risk of biliary tract disease in living liver donors: a population-based cohort study. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230840
Tejura TK, Pita A, Romero C et al (2018) Living donor liver transplantation: post-operative imaging follow-up of right lobe liver donors. Abdomin Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1512-5
Chen-Xu J, Bessa-Melo R, Graça L, Costa-Maia J (2019) Incisional hernia in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: incidence and risk factors. Hernia 23:67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10029-018-1847-4
Iida H, Tani M, Hirokawa F et al (2021) Risk factors for incisional hernia according to different wound sites after open hepatectomy using combinations of vertical and horizontal incisions: s multicenter cohort study. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 5:701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/AGS3.12467
LaPointe RD, Brown RS, Emond JC et al (2004) One-year morbidity after donor right hepatectomy. Liver Transpl 10:1428–1431. https://doi.org/10.1002/LT.20280
Fukuda A, Sakamoto S, Shigeta T et al (2014) Clinical outcomes and evaluation of the quality of life of living donors for pediatric liver transplantation: a single-center analysis of 100 donors. Transplant Proc 46:1371–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.12.054
Raza MH, Kim MH, Ding L et al (2020) Long-term financial, psychosocial, and overall health-related quality of life after living liver donation. precis: HHS public access. J Surg Res 253:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.025
Abdel-Khalek EE, Abdel-Wahab M, Elgazzar MH et al (2022) Long-term follow-up of living liver donors: a single-center experience. Liver Transpl 28:1490–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/LT.26455
Ghobrial RM, Freise CE, Trotter JF et al (2008) Donor morbidity after living donation for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 135:468–476. https://doi.org/10.1053/J.GASTRO.2008.04.018
Singh MK, Lubezky N, Facciuto M et al (2016) Upper midline incision for living donor right hepatectomy. Clin Transplant 30:1010–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/CTR.12781
Kakos CD, Papanikolaou A, Ziogas IA, Tsoulfas G (2023) Global dissemination of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy: What are the barriers? World J Gastrointest Surg 15:776–787. https://doi.org/10.4240/WJGS.V15.I5.776
Samstein B, Griesemer A, Cherqui D et al (2015) Fully laparoscopic left-sided donor hepatectomy is safe and associated with shorter hospital stay and earlier return to work: a comparative study. Liver Transpl 21:768–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/LT.24116
Kobayashi T, Miura K, Ishikawa H, et al (2018) Long-term follow-up of laparoscope-assisted living donor hepatectomy.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.03.035
Cherqui D, Ciria R, Kwon CHD et al (2021) Expert consensus guidelines on minimally invasive donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation from innovation to implementation: a joint initiative from the international laparoscopic liver society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific hepato-pancreato-biliary association (A-PHPBA). Ann Surg 273:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004475
Humphreville VR, Radosevich DM, Humar A et al (2016) Longterm health-related quality of life after living liver donation. Liver Transpl 22:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.24304
Shizuku MA, Kamei BDFH, Kimura HB et al (2020) Clinical features and long-term outcomes of living donors of liver transplantation who developed psychiatric disorders. Ann Transplant. https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.918500
Dew MA, Butt Z, Liu Q et al (2018) Prevalence and predictors of patient-reported long-term mental and physical health after donation in the adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation cohort study. Transplantation 102:105–118. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001942
Butt Z, Dimartini AF, Liu Q, et al (2018) Fatigue, pain, and other physical symptoms of living liver donors in the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL-2). https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.25185
Kaplan RM, Hays RD (2022) Health-related quality of life measurement in public health. Annu Rev Public Health 43:355–373. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PUBLHEALTH-052120-012811
Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-79
Shen S, Zhang W, Jiang L et al (2016) Comparison of upper midline incision with and without laparoscopic assistance for living-donor right hepatectomy. Transplant Proc 48:2726–2731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2016.03.046
Makki K, Chorasiya VK, Sood G et al (2014) Laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy versus conventional (open) hepatectomy for living donors: When you know better, you do better. Liver Transpl 20:1229–1236. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23940
Trotter JF, Hill-Callahan MM, Gillespie BW et al (2007) Severe psychiatric problems in right hepatic lobe donors for living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 83:1506–1508. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000263343.21714.3b
Cheah YL, Simpson MA, Pomposelli JJ, Pomfret EA (2013) Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey. Liver Transpl 19:499–506
Choi JY, Kim JH, Kim JM et al (2021) Outcomes of living liver donors are worse than those of matched healthy controls. J Hepatol 2022:628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.10.031
Lin C-C, Chen C-L, de Villa VH et al (2007) Living donor hepatectomy in a pregnant woman. Hepatogastroenterology 54:539–540
Soyama A, Eguchi S, Takatsuki M et al (2007) Pregnancy and delivery after partial liver donation for living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 84:283. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.TP.0000269613.90060.33
Umeshita K, Fujiwara K, Kiyosawa K et al (2003) Operative morbidity of living liver donors in Japan. Lancet 362:687–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14230-4
Sonnenberg EM, Lee-Riddle GS, Walls DO et al (2021) Pregnancy outcomes after living liver donation: a multi-institutional study. Liver Transpl 27:1262–1272. https://doi.org/10.1002/LT.26098
Lin S-Y, Lin C-L, Liu Y-L et al (2016) Peptic ulcer disease in living liver donors: a longitudinal population-based study. Am J Transplant. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13822
Oh JW, Oh SN, Jung SE, Byun JY (2017) Diaphragmatic hernia after living-donor right hepatectomy: an important late donor complication. J Comput Assist Tomogr 41:726–730. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000591
Goto R, Kawamura N, Watanabe M et al (2023) Long-term risk of a fatty liver in liver donors. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12658
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors did not receive funding for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Concept and layout: R.D.C.; Data analysis: R.D.C. and G.D.L.; Manuscript drafting: R.D.C.; Design of figures and completion of tables: R.D.C. and G.D.L.; Critical review and final approval: A.L., L.C., and L.D.C.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not needed due to the non-direct involvement of patients or animals.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This research does not directly involve patients or animals.
Informed consent
Not applicable due to the non-direct involvement of patients.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
De Carlis, R., Di Lucca, G., Lauterio, A. et al. The long-term follow-up of the living liver donors. Updates Surg (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01894-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01894-4