肝移植门静脉重建技术的革新

门V重建是活体肝移植（LRLT）成功的关键，本文总结了近7年门V重建不同方式和修补门V的新技术，东京大学医院于1990．6～19978间314名行LRLT的病人，男193例，女121例，年龄1个月～61岁（平均6．8士9．9岁），体重3．l～778kg（平均18．8士16kg），胆迢闭锁是常见病。供体男175例，女146例，供体肝重160～630g（283土兀．8g）。供体肝与受体体重比为O．48％～10．1％（2．4％士l'46％），肝移植包括肝段（2～3段）67％，左叶24％，限制性左叶87％，右叶0．3％。门流脉重建方式为无流脉移植的吻合和有静脉移植的吻合两组，分别见图。第…     

一岁以下婴儿肝移植

原位肝移植是治疗终末期肝病患儿的唯一有效手段。但由于缺乏大小合适的供肝，许多患儿未能得到及时治疗而死亡。随着减体积尸体供肝和活体供肝移植技术的问世，婴儿肝移植供肝缺乏的现状得以改善。作者总结了Hopkins医科大学医院1991年6月至1995年1月对13例1岁以下婴儿进行城体积肝移植经验。病人和方法：13例患儿平均年龄7．5岁（4～11月），体重6．6kg（4．5～9．0kg）。胆道闭锁11例，α-1抗胰蛋白酶缺乏症1例，埃可7型病毒感染致肝功能衰竭1例。其中2例（15％）接受全尸体肝移值，4例（31％）行减体积（左外叶）尸体肝移植，7例（54％…     

同种异体原位肝脏移植术治疗终末期肝病43例

目的：总结同种异体肝脏移植手术的临床经验。方法：43例44次手术（再次肝移植1例）中，原发性肝癌19例，终末期乙型肝炎肝硬化16例，终未期丙型肝炎肝硬化1例，终末期酒精性肝硬化2例，原发性胆汁性肝硬化3例，Wilson综合症2例，二次肝移植1例。结果：行改良背驮式9例，经典非转流术式35例次，其中1例行减体积肝移植（左肝外叶切除）。手术移植成活率100％，无原发性移植肝无功能和功能延迟恢复发生。手术成功率88．4％（38／43），其中良性终末期肝病和肝癌97．1％（33／34），重症肝炎为55．6％（5／9）；围手术期病死率：11．6％（5／43）。存活2年以上5例，1年以上3例，目前存活32例。结论：良性终末期肝病和早期肝癌肝移植手术效果良好，合理的手术方式，良好的供体质量，科学的围手术期管理是保证手术成功的重要条件。乙肝和肝癌等移植后易复发疾病的控制对于提高肝移植术后的长期存活率非常重要。     

脑死亡者供肝切取方法与临床肝移植疗效的关系(Pittsburgh经验)

目的：介绍美国匹兹堡大学移植研究所在脑死亡者肝脏的方法及影响供肝质量的因素。方法：回顾性分析３２例同种异体肝脏获取的手术方法,同时观察原位肝移植后的临床结果。结果：男∶女＝２３∶９,平均年龄为３８．２岁±１２．７岁。脑死亡原因：创伤２１例（６５．６３％）,脑血管意外９例（２８．１３％）。１４例（４３．７５％）有肝动脉解剖异常,其中仅右肝动脉变异者７例（２１．８８％）,仅左肝动脉变异者５例（１５．６３％）,左、右肝动脉均变异的２例（６．２５％）;　８例（５７．１４％）变异的肝动脉须在移植前加以重建。在评价移植肝早期功能时,供肝功能良好者２７例（８４．３８％）,差者３例（９．３８％）,２例（６．２５％）供肝无功能。术后近期死亡者一例,余３１例手术后均恢复良好,其中日后作再移植者４例。结论：在获取供肝过程中,充分注意肝素化、原位灌注加局部降温,以及标准化手术操作是保证供肝质量的要素;供体手术中应注意有无肝动脉解剖异常,并避免损伤;供体年龄、供体在ＩＣＵ逗留时间、不正常的供肝形态及围手术期／或术后发生如动脉血栓形成等情况都会明显影响移植肝脏的早期功能。     

再次肝移植治疗移植肝失功的经验分析

目的 总结再次肝移植治疗移植肝失功的临床经验。方法 回顾分析1993年4月至2005年4月期间施行的9例再次肝移植受者临床资料。再次肝移植的原因包括肝动脉血栓（2／9）,门静脉血栓（1／9）,胆道并发症（6／9）;9例再次肝移植均为尸肝移植,3例采用经典原位肝移植,6例采用背驮式肝移植,6例采用Roux-en-Y胆肠内引流,1例供受体门静脉间用供体脾静脉搭桥,1例供体肝动脉与供体腹主动脉之问用供体脾动脉搭桥。结果 全组无手术死亡,5例术后未出现并发症,1例术后门静脉吻合口狭窄,3例术后6个月内死亡。结论 首次肝移植后由于胆道和血管并发症导致移植肝失功是再次肝移植的主要适应证,不失时机地进行再次肝移植是治疗移植肝失功惟一有效的方法。     

奥美拉唑对大鼠减体积肝移植后肝再生的影响

目的观察奥美拉唑对大鼠减体积肝移植肝细胞再生的影响。方法建立大鼠减体积肝移植模型，实验组移植后即时给予奥美拉唑，对照组予生理盐水。两组分别于肝移植术后分为5组（n=8），观察术后3、5、7、10、14d血清丙氨酸转氨酶、天冬氨酸转氨酶值、移植肝重／供肝减体积前全肝重比值、移植肝细胞有丝分裂指数（MI）、增殖细胞核抗原（PCNA）表达指数、溴脱氧尿嘧啶核苷（BrdU）掺入指数及血清胃泌素值。结果大鼠减体积肝移植术后5d肝细胞再生达高峰，实验组的再生活性显著高于对照组，MI为（2．54±0．24）％和（1．71±0．16）％（P〈0．01）、PC—NA指数为（26．96±2．09）％和（18．73±1．94）％（P〈0．01）、BrdU指数为（10．24±1．11）％和（5．75±0．88）％（P〈0．01）。术后7d，实验组和对照组移植肝重／全肝重比值分别为（76．3±1．6）％和（71．2±1．0）％（P〈0．05），血清胃泌素水平分别为（441．9±25．9）ng／L和（292．9±14．2）ng／L（P〈0．05）。术后14d，实验组和对照组移植肝重／全肝重比值分别为（94．5±1．7）％和（86．9±1．5）％（P〈0．01），血清胃泌素水平分别为（487．8±29．4）ng／L和（291．7±21．6）ng／L（P〈0．01）。实验组和对照组血清ALT、AST值差异无统计学意义。结论奥美拉唑能促进减体积肝移植术后的肝细胞再生，其作用可能与胃泌素分泌增高有关。     

彩色多普勒血流显像对肝移植术后监测的应用价值

目的探讨彩色多普勒血流显像技术在移植肝术后检测中的应用价值。方法对38例肝移植术后患者行床旁彩色多普勒血流显像超声检查，观察移植肝实质及周围回声变化及肝动、静脉系统的血流动力学参数改变。结果38例移植肝中3例（7．8％）肝实质回声增强或肝包膜下见部分大小不一的低回声灶。血流动力学变化：2例（5．2％）肝动脉血流流速减慢，呈低速高阻型，；5例（13．1％）门静脉流速增快；1例（2．6％）肝静脉呈单向波。5例（13．1％）胆总管腔显示不清；11例（28．9％）先后发生排斥反应；1例（2．6％）肝动脉血栓形成（HAT）；6例（15．8％）门静脉吻合口狭窄；3例（7．8％）门静脉血栓形成；30例（78．9％）于肝周及胸腹腔有少量积液。结论：彩色多普勒血流显像技术应用于移植肝术后检测其物理形态及血流动力学变化对早期发现肝移植排异反应及并发症具有重要的临床应用价值。     

再次肝移植的长期生存

移植肝功能丧失的唯一治疗是再移植，但有不少供体、受者和手术等方面的因素影响其最终结局，为此作者复习了Dumont－UCLA移植中心于1984～1996年所施行肝移植2057次（1701例病人）的资料，着重对299例病人356次再度肝移植的生存率进行分析，其中250例接受2次肝移植，43例接受3次，6例接受3次以上。成人接受移植时的年龄72．2％为18岁或以下。同时取150例仅移植1次的病例作为对照，按相拟年龄、相近移植时间和受体器官分配联网状态（UNOS）进行病例-对照研究，应用多变量回归分析评估与生存率有关的因素。结果（一）再次移植病人的生存…     

肝移植术中复杂的肝动脉重建

目的 探讨供肝肝动脉解剖变异的整形重建方式及对移植后肝动脉血栓形成（HAT）、胆道并发症及移植疗效的影响。方法 回顾性分析1999年5月至2005年9月完成的330例原位肝移植临床资料。应用显微外科技术对变异肝动脉进行整形。供肝肝动脉整形、重建及供受者问动脉的吻合在2．5倍放大镜下以7-0、8-0 Prolene或Vascufil缝线完成。术后每日用多普勒超声检查肝动脉血流1周，其后定期监测。结果 67例供肝肝动脉存在解剖变异，占20．5%（67／327），实施血管重建性吻合79例次。存在动脉变异供肝附加血管整形重建组围手术期HAT发生率与无肝动脉变异供肝肝移植组围手术期HAT发生率比较（1．5％7351．15％）；随访期内胆道并发症发生率与无肝动脉变异供肝肝移植组发生率比较（9．0％vs7．7%），均无显著差异（P〉0．05）。两组受者比较，1、3年生存率无显著差异（91．3％vs90．7％，86．7％vs88．2％）（P〉0．05）。结论 应用存在肝动脉变异并血管整形的供肝，实施肝移植不增加HAT及胆道并发症发生率，并可取得与无变异肝动脉供肝相同的远期疗效。     

Celsior液和UW液保存供肝的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的比较Celsior液和UW液保存供肝的效果。方法随机选取拟行肝移植的患者60例，平均分为两组，一组接受以Celsior液灌洗和冷保存的供肝（Celsior液组）移植，另一组接受以UW液灌洗和冷保存的供肝（UW液组）移植，两组在患者年龄、性别构成、肝功能分级以及原发病、肝移植术式等方面的差异无统计学意义。比较两组供肝组织学变化、术后早期肝功能恢复情况及术后3个月内缺血性胆道狭窄的发生率。结果Celsior液组供肝冷缺血时间为（8．83±1．53）h，UW液组为（9．08±1．85）h，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组术后早期血清丙氨酸转氨酶、天冬氨酸转氨酶、γ-谷氨酰转移酶、胆红素总量、出血时间及胆汁量的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），术后3个月内，Celsior液组缺血性胆道狭窄发生率为6．7％（2／30），UW液组为13．3％（4／30），差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。两组移植肝的组织学改变相似。结论在冷缺血时间一致的情况下，Celsior液保存供肝的效果与UW液相同。     

Use of elderly donors (> 60 years) for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: As the demand for liver transplantation has become greater than the availability of donor livers, the criteria for donor selection or rejection are more important than ever before. In view of an increasing number of patients on the waiting list, some centres are expanding their donor pool by relaxing the criteria, such as by using organs from elderly (> 60 years) brainstem-dead donors. In this study, we reviewed our experience of using elderly brain-dead donor livers, investigating the potential prognostic factors of the donor, and analysing the influence of donor age on early graft function and graft survival. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 106 cadaveric donor liver transplantations in 98 patients. Seven patients (6.6%, 7 vs 106) received livers from donors older than 60 years. Pre-transplantation characteristics of donors and the outcome of recipients were evaluated. Donor prognostic factors were analysed using Cox univariate analysis and confirmed by a multivariate forward stepwise Cox model. Early graft function was compared between recipients of grafts from donors older and younger than 60 years. RESULTS: There were no primary non-functions or re-transplants in the group receiving elderly grafts. Early graft function was similar in patients with grafts from elderly and younger donors. Univariate analysis demonstrated that prognostic factors had no relationship with long-term recipient survival. The 3-month and 1-year cumulative graft survival rates were 100% and 82% in the elderly graft group and 84% and 83% in the younger graft group, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test indicated that there was no difference in graft and patient survival rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Old age is not a contraindication for liver donation. Liver grafts from donors older than 60 years can be used safely.     

The use of older donor livers for hepatic transplantation

The function and outcome of liver grafts from "older" donors (more than 50 years old) were compared with grafts from younger donors (less than 50 years old). Of 184 consecutive liver transplants, 23 grafts were from older donors (50.2-65.3 years, mean 54.3 years). The liver preservation period was short, averaging less than 4 hr with the maximum under 8 hr for the older grafts. The majority of livers were preserved with Collins' solution. All transplants were performed using consistent methods that had proved to be successful over time. The medical status of the patients who received the older and younger grafts was similar but a higher percentage of older grafts were transplanted into ABO blood group--incompatible recipients. Graft function--as determined by peak aminotransferase levels, duration of prolonged prothrombin time, retransplantation rate within 30 days and incidence of primary nonfunction--was not significantly different in older versus younger grafts. Actual 30-day graft survival was 86.9% in the older grafts and 85.1% in the younger grafts. Actuarial 1-year graft and patient survival rates were 65.0% and 71.4%, respectively, in recipients of older grafts and 68.8% and 75.6%, respectively, in recipients of younger grafts. It is concluded that donor livers older than 50 years can be transplanted with the same success as younger livers provided that other generally accepted donor criteria are satisfied and the preservation period is short. The upper age limit for liver donation is not yet known.     

Results of Liver Transplantation From Old Donors

Introduction

Faced with a shortage of organs for liver transplantation, the use of grafts from older donors is justified. However, there remains little consensus on how this use impacts the graft and patient outcomes after transplantation from these older donors. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the graft and patient outcomes after liver transplantation from deceased donors >60 years of age.

Methods

From January 2007 to January 2011, 505 subjects were identified as liver graft donors after brain death, of which 7.35% were ≥60. To determine the effect of donor age on graft and patient outcomes, we analyzed donor age, recipient age, the Model for End-State Liver Disease (MELD) score of recipients at the time of transplantation, early posttransplant complications, and mortality.

Results

The posttransplant follow-up was 29 ± 25.5 months, and 3-year patient mortality from donors, grouped according to age, was 7.92% with donors <30; 15.78% with donors 30–50, 10.68% with donors 50–60, and 12.50% with donors >60. After analysis of patient and graft survival based on donor graft age, 3-year patient survival according donor age was 89.29% with donors <30, 83.85% with donors 30–50, 89.89% with donors 50–60, and 87.50% with donors >60. Analysis showed overall patient and graft survival rates from older donors were not worse than those from younger donors (P > .1). Among the cases, 3-year patient survival according to MELD score was 91.19% with a MELD of I, 85.37% with a MELD of II, and 67.67% with a MELD of III; differences in graft and patient survival when comparing low MELD I and high MELD III were significantly different (P < .01).

Conclusions

A more advanced age of a donor should not be a contraindication for liver transplantation. The present analysis shows that liver grafts from donors >60 can be used safely in older recipients who presented with relatively low MELD scores. Analyses also indicate that high MELD obtained before transplantation may be an important prognostic factor for graft and patient survival.     

Kidneys from Deceased Donors: Maximizing the Value of a Scarce Resource

Donor age is a significant risk factor for graft loss after kidney transplantation. We investigated the question whether significant graft years were being lost through transplantation of younger donor kidneys into older recipients with potentially shorter lifespans than the organs they receive. We examined patient and graft survival for deceased donor kidney transplants performed in the United States between the years 1990 and 2002 by Kaplan-Meier plots. We categorized the distribution of deceased donor kidneys by donor and recipient age. Subsequently, we calculated the actual and projected graft survival of transplanted kidneys from younger donors with the patient survival of transplant recipients of varying ages. Over the study period, 16.4% (9250) transplants from donors aged 15-50 were transplanted to recipients over the age of 60. At the same time, 73.6% of donors above the age of 50 were allocated to recipients under the age of 60. The graft survival of grafts from younger donors significantly exceeded the patient survival of recipients over the age of 60. The overall projected improvement in graft survival, by excluding transplantation of younger kidneys to older recipients, was approximately 3 years per transplant. Avoiding the allocation of young donor kidneys to elderly recipients, could have significantly increased the overall graft life, by a total 27,500 graft years, between 1990 and 2002, with projected cost savings of about 1.5 billion dollars.     

Impact of age older than 60 years in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) was extended to adults in recent years and more recently to older patients. The impact of donor age, analysis of preoperative risk factors for older LDLT recipients, and comparison of the complication rate between older and younger recipients were analyzed. METHODS: Subjects included patients who underwent LDLT at Kyoto University Hospital from October 1996 to December 2005. Twenty-three donors were 60 years of age or older, and 411 were younger than 60 years of age. Fifty-two recipients were 60 years of age or older and 410 were younger than 60 years of age. RESULTS: Postoperative recovery of liver function for donors and recipient/graft survival were not influenced by donor age. Hospital stay was longer in the donors 60 years of age or older than those younger than 60 years of age (P=0.02). The 5-year survival rates were 78.7% in recipients 60 years of age or older and 69.3% in younger recipients (P=0.26). Among preoperative risk factors for recipient survival rate, fulminant hepatic failure and preoperative status in the intensive care unit were significant (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications for recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Selected right lobe donors from individuals who were 60 years of age or older showed a similar postoperative course compared with younger donors. Moreover, LDLT is feasible for patients 60 years of age or older who do not require care in the intensive care unit or do not have fulminant hepatic failure.     

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.     

Long-term results after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation using donors aged 45 years or older

With the shortage of organ donors, there is a critical need to use all available pancreas grafts for transplantation. METHODS: From June 1994 to December 2006 we performed 340 pancreas transplantations (317 simultaneous pancreas-kidney 5 pancreas only, 18 pancreas after kidney) including 69 (20%) transplantations from donors aged 45 years or older. Pancreas grafts from older donors were analyzed for graft and patient survival as well as surgical complications, compared with results from younger donors. RESULTS: Recipient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The older donor group mean age was 47.8 years (+/-2.1) versus 27.9 years (+/-10.3) for the younger group. Cumulative patient survival was 96% versus 98% after 1, 82% versus 91% after 5 and 82% versus 88% after 10 years with 1-5- and 10-year kidney graft survivals of 82%, 72%, 57% versus 93%, 83%, 73%, respectively. Pancreas transplant survival after 1, 5, and 10 years were 69%, 60%, 45% in older and 88%, 76%, and 72% in younger donor cohorts. There were 14 (20%) cases of venous thrombosis in the older group and 25 (9%) in the younger group (P = .012). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that utilization of pancreas grafts from donors over 45 years resulted in acceptable outcomes after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant and could expand the donor pool. Among the older donor group, patient survival was slightly lower than the younger group, whereas pancreas graft function was significantly inferior (P < .01). Since venous thrombosis was the main reason for pancreas graft loss in older group, anticoagulation is essential.     

Using elderly donors in liver transplantation

AIM: Elderly donors are half of the grafts available in our center for liver transplantation. We retrospectively investigated their characteristics, outcomes, and variables related to graft failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1996 to 2003, 540 (46.4%) of 1163 donors were older than 60 years of age and 236 grafts (43.4%) were transplanted, whereas the others were refused. The clinical investigated variables were examined among this cohort. RESULTS: The median age of donors increased from 37 to 62 years. Donors older than 60 years of age were more often refused than younger ones (66% vs 44%); HCV-positive (9.9% vs 5.4%); HbcAb-positive (18.6% vs 12.6%), and steatotic (35.7% vs 13.9%; P < .01). Among donors older than 60 years, the main parameter to refuse the graft was the grade of steatosis. The variables related to the graft loss from donors older than 60 years were as follows: model for end stage liver disease (MELD) recipient >15 (65% vs 39%), cold ischemia time >10 hours (25% vs 13%), high blood losses (3987 +/- 4764 vs 2664 +/- 2043 mL), and year of liver transplantation after 2000 (26% vs 46%; P < .01). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were significantly lower among donors older than 60 years than other donors: 75%, 65%, and 62% versus 85%, 83%, and 78%, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Donors older than 60 years of age provided liver transplants to half of our recipients. The graft survival rate of these organs was lower than that of younger donors and to improve it the other risk variables for poor outcome should be reduced, including MELD score of the recipient and prolonged cold ischemia time.     

Expanding the living related donor pool in renal transplantation: use of marginal donors

PURPOSE: In a living related transplantation program it is not always possible to find an ideal donor. Sometimes the only available donor in the family has some benign disease or suboptimal renal anatomy or physiology, or is too old to be accepted and defined as a marginal donor. However, with proper screening the donor pool can be increased by accepting these marginal donors and treating the benign diseases which is beneficial to the donor. We evaluate the outcome of grafts from marginal donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 1988 to August 1997, 581 live related transplantations were performed. Of the donors 52 were older than 60 years and 34 had associated benign renal or nonrenal anomaly or disease. These donors were accepted after thorough questioning and consultation with family members. The recipients of graft from elderly donors were evaluated for the number of rejections, serum creatinine at last followup and graft survival. RESULTS: Of the recipients 52 received grafts from elderly donors with a mean age of 62.6+/-3.7 years. Mean followup was 34.14+/-0.7 months. The 2 and 5-year actuarial graft survival was 96% and 74%, respectively. Creatinine was normal (less than 1.5) in 37% of recipients and 1.5 to 2.5 mg.% in 46%. The rejection rate in postoperative month 1 was 29%. All donors underwent simultaneous surgery to treat the benign disease, and all did well after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: By accepting these marginal donors a 14.6% increase in the living related donor pool was achieved without compromising recipient or donor safety. Otherwise these recipients would have been forced to undergo unrelated transplantation or be maintained on dialysis, which is particularly difficult in a developing country. Donors with associated disease benefited from cure.     

Living related kidney donors over 60 years old

The lack of available cadaveric organs for transplantation has resulted in an increased number of kidney transplants from living donors. During a period of 6 years, 149 kidney transplantations were performed from living related donors in our institute, 33.5% of whom were older than 60 years of age. In this study we examined the survival of patients and grafts as well as the graft function in 50 patients with transplants from donors over 60 years (mean age 65 years) as compared with those of 99 patients with transplants from donors younger than 60 years (mean age 47 years). There were no significant differences in the course of donor nephrectomy, postoperative complications, or remnant kidney function. However, delayed graft function occurred more frequently in recipients of transplants from older donors. Improvement in graft function was also slower in recipients of kidneys from older donors, with significant differences in serum creatinine levels observed during the first 12 months after transplantation. More frequent acute complications and more progressive chronic graft failure, irrespective of the causes, occurred during the 1st post-transplant year in recipients with grafts from older donors. Five-year patient survival (77% vs 92%) and kidney graft survival differed significantly for the same period with worse results for patients receiving grafts from older donors. It may be concluded that kidney grafts from donors older than 60 years — and especially those older than 70 years — may be used for living related kidney transplantation, but with precautions.