Ureteral avulsion after ureteroscopy treated with renal auto-transplantation.

Ureteral avulsion can be secondary to blunt or penetrating trauma, or can emerge as a surgical complication. Popularization of minimally invasive interventions has significantly decreased ureteral injuries, ranging from 0% to 28% and varying from minor mucosal injury to perforation, and most catastrophically, avulsion. We present a case of complete ureteral avulsion that was not initially appreciated after undergoing ureteroscopy for stone extraction. Eventual recognition of this injury was managed successfully with a subsequent laparoscopically nephrectomy and renal auto-transplantation preserving renal function.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

Introduction: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35. Methods: We analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching. Results: In the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively). Discussion: In highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs.

Motivations and outcomes of compatible living donor-recipient pairs in paired exchange.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

Opioid use prior to liver transplant is associated with increased risk of death after transplant.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are generally discouraged and used sparingly in liver transplant (LT) candidates prior to LT. This study examined the relationship between opioid use at the time of LT and graft and patient survival following transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective single center cohort study of LT recipients from June 2012 to December 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes were graft and patient survival, analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models; primary predictor was active opioid prescription at LT. RESULTS: 751 LT recipients were included; 16% had an opioid prescription at LT. Post-transplant death was significantly greater in opioid users (pvalue<0.001). In a multivariable Cox model examining predictors of death, opioid use remained associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (HR 2.4 CI 1.5-4.0, p < 0.001) even after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSION: Opioid use at LT is associated with a markedly increased risk of death following transplant.

Retransplantation After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Data from the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for primary liver transplantation (LT) may quell concerns about allocating deceased donor organs if the need for retransplantation (re-LT) arises because the primary LT did not draw from the limited organ pool. However, outcomes of re-LT after LDLT are poorly studied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) data to report outcomes of re-LT after LDLT, with a focus on long-term survival after re-LT. METHODS: A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor LT. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of re-LT and patient survival were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 110 recipients (10.3%) required re-LT. In multivariable analyses, hepatitis C virus, longer length of stay at LDLT, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary stricture, infection, and disease recurrence were associated with an increased risk of re-LT. Patient survival among re-LT patients was significantly inferior to those who underwent primary transplant only at 1 (86% versus 92%), 5 (64% versus 82%), and 10 years (44% versus 68%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 10% of A2ALL patients who underwent primary LDLT required re-LT. Compared with patients who underwent primary LT, survival among re-LT recipients was worse at 1, 5, and 10 years after LT, and re-LT was associated with a significantly increased risk of death in multivariable modeling (hazard ratios, 2.29; P < 0.001).

Advantages and Limitations of Clinical Scores for Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.

Molecular Insights in Transmission of Cancer From an Organ Donor to Four Transplant Recipients.

Organ donors are systematically screened for infection, whereas screening for malignancy is less rigorous. The true incidence of donor-transmitted malignancies is unknown due to a lack of universal tumor testing in the posttransplant setting. Donor-transmitted malignancy may occur even when not suspected based on donor or recipient factors, including age and time to cancer diagnosis. We describe the detection of a gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma transmitted from a young donor to 4 transplant recipients. Multidimensional histopathologic and genomic profiling showed a CDH1 mutation and MET amplification, consistent with gastric origin. At the time of writing, one patient in this series remains alive and without evidence of cancer after prompt organ explant after cancer was reported in other recipients. Because identification of a donor-derived malignancy changes management, our recommendation is to routinely perform short tandem repeat testing (or a comparable assay) immediately upon diagnosis of cancer in any organ transplant recipient. Routine testing for a donor-origin cancer and centralized reporting of outcomes are necessary to establish a robust evidence base for the future development of clinical practice guidelines.

Impact of Sarcopenia on Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation Outcomes: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia has been identified as a predictive variable for surgical outcomes. We hypothesized that sarcopenia could be a key measure to identify frail patients and potentially predict poorer outcomes among recipients of simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) transplants. METHODS: We estimated sarcopenia by measuring psoas muscle mass index (PMI). PMI was assessed on perioperative computed tomography (CT) scans of SPK recipients. RESULTS: Of the 141 patients identified between 2010 and 2018, 107 had a CT scan available and were included in the study. The median follow-up was 4 years (range, 0.5-9.1 y). Twenty-three patients had a low PMI, and 84 patients had a normal PMI. Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for body mass index, which was significantly lower in low PMI group (P < 0.001). Patient and kidney graft survival were not statistically different between groups (P = 0.851 and P = 0.357, respectively). A multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that patients with a low PMI were 6 times more likely to lose their pancreas allograft (hazard ratios, 5.4; 95% confidence intervals, 1.4-20.8; P = 0.015). Three out of 6 patients lost their pancreas graft due to rejection in the low PMI group, compared with 1 out of 9 patients in the normal PMI group. Among low PMI patients who had a follow-up CT scan, 62.5% (5/8) of those with a functional pancreas graft either improved or resolved sarcopenia, whereas 75.0% (3/4) of those who lost their pancreas graft continued to lose muscle mass. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia could represent one of the predictors of pancreas graft failure and should be evaluated and potentially optimized in SPK recipients.

Inferior Long-Term Graft Survival of Suboptimal Kidneys After Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In living donors, if both kidneys are considered to be of equal quality, the side with favorable anatomy for transplant is usually selected. A "suboptimal kidney" is a kidney that has a significant abnormality and is chosen to maintain the principle of leaving the better kidney with the donor. We hypothesized that the long-term outcome of suboptimal kidney is inferior to that of the normal kidney. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of 1744 living donor kidney transplantations performed between 1999 and 2015 at our institution, 172 allografts were considered as a suboptimal kidney (9.9%). Median length of follow-up after living donor kidney transplantation was 59.5 months (interquartile range 26.3-100.8). This study strictly complied with the Helsinki Congress and the Istanbul Declaration regarding donor source. RESULTS: The reasons for suboptimal kidneys were cysts or tumors (46.5%), arterial abnormalities (22.7%), inferior size or function (19.8%), and anatomic abnormalities (11.0%). Suboptimal kidneys showed worse long-term overall graft survival regardless of the reasons (5-year: control vs suboptimal kidney; 88.9% vs 79.3%, P = .001 and 10-year: 73.6% vs 63.5%, P = .004). Suboptimal kidneys showed a 1.6-fold higher adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause graft loss (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.5, P = .025) and had the same impact as older donor age (≥ 54 years old, aHR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.4, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of suboptimal kidney should be factored into the donor selection process.

Rapid Modification of Workflows and Fellow Staffing at a Single Transplant Center to Address the COVID-19 Crisis.

BACKGROUND: Although hospital systems have largely halted elective surgical practices in preparing their response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, transplantation remains an essential and lifesaving surgical practice. To continue transplantation while protecting immunocompromised patients and health care workers, significant restructuring of normal patient care practice habits is required. METHODS: This is a nonrandomized, descriptive study of the abdominal transplant program at 1 academic center (University of California, San Francisco) and the programmatic changes undertaken to safely continue transplantations. Patient transfers, fellow use, and patient discharge education were identified as key areas requiring significant reorganization. RESULTS: The University of California, San Francisco abdominal transplant program took an early and aggressive approach to restructuring inpatient workflows and health care worker staffing. The authors formalized a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transfer system to address patients in need of services at their institution while minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 in their transplant ward and used technological approaches to provide virtual telehealth where possible. They also modified their transplant fellow staffing and responsibilities to develop an adequate backup system in case of potential exposures. CONCLUSION: Every transplant program is unique, and an individualized plan to adapt and modify standard clinical practices will be required to continue providing essential transplantation services. The authors' experience highlights areas of attention specific to transplant programs and may provide generalizable solutions to support continued transplantation in the COVID-19 era.

Living Donor Liver Transplant for Alcoholic Liver Disease: Data from the Adult-to-adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) accounts for 15%-30% of transplants performed in the United States and Europe; however, the data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD remain sparse. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes following LDLT for ALD using data from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALL) study, which represents the largest Western experience with adult-to-adult LDLT. METHODS: A retrospective review of A2ALL data collected between 1998 and 2014 was performed. Patients were excluded if they received a deceased donor liver transplant. Demographic data, postoperative outcomes and complications, graft and patient survival, and predictors of graft and patient survival were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 1065 patients who underwent LDLT during the study time period, 168 (15.8%) were transplanted for a diagnosis of ALD. Comparing patients who underwent transplant for ALD with those who were transplanted for other etiologies of liver disease, there was no significant difference in graft survival at 1 (88% versus 84%), 5 (76% versus 74%), or 10 years following transplant (55% versus 61%, P = 0.29). Similarly, there was no difference in patient survival at 1 (94% versus 91%), 5 (83% versus 79%), or 10 years following transplant (61% versus 66%, P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: LDLT for ALD results in excellent 1-, 5-, and 10-year graft and patient survival. Patients with ALD and impaired renal function have a higher risk of graft loss and death. These findings support the notion that early LDLT for patients with ALD may help optimize outcomes.

Bi-organ paired exchange-Sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap.

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap.

Fatigue, Pain, and Other Physical Symptoms of Living Liver Donors in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study.

Little is known about living liver donors' perceptions of their physical well-being following the procedure. We collected data on donor fatigue, pain, and other relevant physical outcomes as part of the prospective, multicenter Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study consortium. A total of 271 (91%) of 297 eligible donors were interviewed at least once before donation and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after donation using validated measures when available. Repeated measures regression models were used to identify potential predictors of worse physical outcomes. We found that donors reported more fatigue immediately after surgery that improved by 2 years after donation, but not to predonation levels. A similar pattern was seen across a number of other physical outcomes. Abdominal or back pain and interference from their pain were rated relatively low on average at all study points. However, 21% of donors did report clinically significant pain at some point during postdonation study follow-up. Across multiple outcomes, female donors, donors whose recipients died, donors with longer hospital stays after surgery, and those whose families discouraged donation were at risk for worse physical well-being outcomes. In conclusion, although not readily modifiable, we have identified risk factors that may help identify donors at risk for worse physical outcomes for targeted intervention. Liver Transplantation 00 000-000 2018 AASLD.

De novo thyroid cancer following solid organ transplantation-A 25-year experience at a high-volume institution with a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the rate, stage, and prognosis of thyroid cancer in patients after solid-organ transplantations, and compared this to the general population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who developed thyroid cancer after a solid-organ transplantation between January 1988 and December 2013 at a high volume transplant center. Standardized Incidence Ratio's (SIR) were calculated. Additionally, a systematic review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: A total of 10,428 patients underwent solid organ transplantation. Eleven patients (11.4 per 100,000 person-years) developed thyroid cancer: six men and five women with a mean age at diagnosis of thyroid cancer of 58 years. Ten patients underwent surgery and had stage I thyroid cancer. One patient had recurrent disease after a mean follow-up time of 78 months. The SIR varied between 0.75 and 2.3. Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review with a SIR ranging from 2.5 to 35. CONCLUSION: Rate of thyroid cancer is not significantly higher in patients who underwent solid organ transplantation compared to general population. Stage at presentation and prognosis also appear to be similar to that of the general population. Post-transplant screening for thyroid cancer remains debatable; however, when thyroid cancer is discovered, treatment should be similar to that of non-transplant patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:105-108. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Psychosocial Outcomes 3 to 10 Years After Donation in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of liver donors' psychosocial outcomes focus on the short term and rely largely on quality-of-life measures not specific to donation. We sought to examine long-term donation effects on 3 psychosocial domains: perceived physical, emotional, and socioeconomic outcomes. METHODS: Individuals donating 3 to 10 years previously at 9 centers were eligible for telephone surveys. Survey responses were examined descriptively. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct donor groups based on response profiles across psychosocial domains. Potential predictors of response profiles were evaluated with regression analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred seventeen donors (66%) participated (M = 5.8 years postdonation, SD = 1.9). Fifteen percent to 48% of donors endorsed current donation-related physical health problems and concerns, and 7%-60% reported socioeconomic concerns (eg, insurance difficulties, financial expenditures). However, on average, donors experienced high psychological growth, and 90% felt positively about donation. Cluster analysis revealed 5 donor groups. One group showed high psychological benefit, with little endorsement of physical or socioeconomic concerns (15% of donors). Four groups showed less favorable profiles, with varying combinations of difficulties. The largest such group showed high endorsement of physical concerns and financial expenditures, and only modest psychological benefit (31% of donors). Men and nonHispanic whites were most likely to have unfavorable response profiles (Ps < 0.01). Compared with donors aged 19 to 30 years, older donors were less likely to have unfavorable profiles; these differences were significant for donors in the >40 to 50 year age group (Ps < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Even many years postdonation, donors report adverse physical and socioeconomic effects, but positive emotional effects as well. Identification of response profiles and predictors may improve targeting of postdonation surveillance and care.

Impact of Graft Selection on Donor and Recipient Outcomes After Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Balancing donor and recipient risks in living donor liver transplantation remains an issue of debate. This study assessed the impact of graft selection on outcomes and complications for left lobe (LL) versus right lobe (RL) donors and recipients. METHODS: The medical records of donors and recipients, who underwent living donor liver transplantation at our institution between 2003 and 2015, were reviewed. For donors, we evaluated graft volume, residual liver volume per standard liver volume, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, and readmissions. For recipients, we looked at graft and patient survival, graft function at postoperative days 7 and 14, graft volume, LOS, biliary complications, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant, and hepatitis C virus status. RESULTS: At 5 years posttransplant, there were no significant differences in graft survival for LL recipients (86% [95% confidence interval, 74-93]) compared with 82% (95% confidence interval, 69-89) for RL recipients (P = 0.85) or recipient survival (90% vs 84%; P = 0.44). In LL recipients, postoperative days 7 and 14 median international normalized ratio (1.5 and 1.2, respectively) and total bilirubin (4.6 and 2.7) were significantly greater compared with RL recipients (7 and 14 days international normalized ratio [1.2, P < 0.001; 1.1, P = 0.001] and total bilirubin (2.7, P = 0.001; 2.1, P = 0.05)). The LL recipients also had a significantly greater median LOS (14 vs 10, P = 0.008). Median donor LOS was significantly greater for RL donors (7 [interquartile range, 7-8] vs 7 [interquartile range, 6-7] days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RL and LL grafts provide comparable long-term outcomes in properly selected donor-recipient pairs and the appropriate use of LL grafts does not impact graft or patient survival at 5 years posttransplant.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America.

OBJECTIVES: To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival. BACKGROUND: The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks. METHODS: Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Liver regeneration after living donor transplantation: adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study.

Adult-to-adult living donors and recipients were studied to characterize patterns of liver growth and identify associated factors in a multicenter study. Three hundred and fifty donors and 353 recipients in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) receiving transplants between March 2003 and February 2010 were included. Potential predictors of 3-month liver volume included total and standard liver volumes (TLV and SLV), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (in recipients), the remnant and graft size, remnant-to-donor and graft-to-recipient weight ratios (RDWR and GRWR), remnant/TLV, and graft/SLV. Among donors, 3-month absolute growth was 676 ± 251 g (mean ± SD), and percentage reconstitution was 80% ± 13%. Among recipients, GRWR was 1.3% ± 0.4% (8 < 0.8%). Graft weight was 60% ± 13% of SLV. Three-month absolute growth was 549 ± 267 g, and percentage reconstitution was 93% ± 18%. Predictors of greater 3-month liver volume included larger patient size (donors and recipients), larger graft volume (recipients), and larger TLV (donors). Donors with the smallest remnant/TLV ratios had larger than expected growth but also had higher postoperative bilirubin and international normalized ratio at 7 and 30 days. In a combined donor-recipient analysis, donors had smaller 3-month liver volumes than recipients adjusted for patient size, remnant or graft volume, and TLV or SLV (P = 0.004). Recipient graft failure in the first 90 days was predicted by poor graft function at day 7 (HR = 4.50, P = 0.001) but not by GRWR or graft fraction (P > 0.90 for each). Both donors and recipients had rapid yet incomplete restoration of tissue mass in the first 3 months, and this confirmed previous reports. Recipients achieved a greater percentage of expected total volume. Patient size and recipient graft volume significantly influenced 3-month volumes. Importantly, donor liver volume is a critical predictor of the rate of regeneration, and donor remnant fraction affects postresection function. Liver Transpl 21:79-88, 2015. © 2014 AASLD.