Conclusion: Biliary complications could be managed endoscopically. RLGs with multiple biliary orifices should not be prohibited as it does not penalize recipient biliary reconstruction outcome in AALDLT. FP28-04 SELECTION AND OUTCOME OF THE POTENTIAL LIVE LIVER DONOR S. Mahansaria 1 , V. Pamecha 1 , K. Bharathy 1 , S. Kumar 1 , S. Sasturkar 1 , P. Sinha 1 and S. Sarin 2 1 Liver Transplantation & HPB Surgery, and 2 Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences, India Introduction: A thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcome in an otherwise healthy individual. The aim of current study was to evaluate the reasons for not proceeding to donation and the outcome of live liver donors (LLD). Methods: Prospective observational study of potential LLD undergoing donor evaluation from April 2012 to January 2015. Outcome of donor evaluation in a standard stepwise protocol and Peri-operative complications were recorded. Results: 460 LLD were evaluated in a stepwise manner for 367 potential recipients. 139 (30.3%) donors proceeded to donation. Of the 321 (69.7%) donors not proceeding to donation, 204 (63.55%) were for donor related and 117 (36.44%) were for recipient related reasons (figure 1). Common donor related reasons were: donor reluctance (23.52%), negative liver attenuation index (16.17%), anatomic variations (10.29%), inadequate remnant liver volume ( < 30%) (9.80%), evidence of greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis or steatohepatitis on liver biopsy (8.82%), and inadequate graft recipient weight ratio (5.39%). Majority of donors (82.84%) were turned down early in the (step 1 & 2) evaluation process. Recipient death was the most common recipient related reason [n = 51 (43.58%)]. There was no donor mortality. The overall complication rate was 19.8% and major complication rate (grade 3 or higher) was 4.4% (table 1). Conclusions: A stringent stepwise donor evaluation pro- cess leads to early recognition of unsuitable donors and low complication rate. Multiple counseling sessions and confi- dential donor interview can identify donor reluctance to make sure that the process of donation is voluntary. [Outcome of donor evaluation] FP28-05 MANAGEMENT OF THE OPEN ABDOMEN IN DIFFICULT ADULT LIVER TRANSPLANTATION: VACUUM ASSISTED CLOSURE (VAC) SYSTEM VERSUS SKIN ONLY CLOSURE C. Hobeika, P. O. Bucur, M. -A. Allar, G. Pittau, O. Ciacio, A. Sa Cunha, D. Castaing, E. Vibert, D. Cherqui and R. Adam Centre Hépato-Biliaire, Paul-Brousse Hospital (AP-HP), France Introduction: VAC therapy may improve the rate of abdominal wall repair following difficult LT with impos- sible immediate fascial closure. Aim of this study was to compare the VAC therapy (VAC) versus skin only closure (SOC). Methods: All patients with postponed fascial closure after LT from 2002 to 2014 were included. Results: Over 1559 LT during the study period, a total of 47 patients (3%) underwent postponed fascial closure because of large or congestive graft[n = 25 (53%)], digestive oedema [n = 7 (15%)], packing for haemorrhage [(n = 6 (13%)] or their combination [n = 9 (47%)]. Among FP28-04 - Table Grade Complication Management Number of donors Grade 3 A Pleural effusion Percutaneous drainage 2 (1.43%) Grade 3 A Intraabdominal collection (right subdiaphrmatic collection, non bilious) Percutaneous drainage 1 (0.71%) Grade 3 B Bile leakage ERCP+ Sphicterotomy 1 (0.71%) Grade 3 B Compartment syndrome right upper limb Fasciotomy 1 (0.71%) Grade 3 B Wound dehiscence Laparotomy, closure 1 (0.71%) Grade 4 Life threatening complication NA 0 Grade 5 Mortality NA 0 [Postoperative major donor complications (N = 139)] HPB 2016, 18 (S1), e1ee384 e90 Electronic Poster Abstracts