4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A prospective comparison of systemic-bladder versus portal-enteric drainage in vascularized pancreas transplantation

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 217-226

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1067/msy.2000.103160

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Most pancreas transplants are performed with systemic venous delivery of insulin and bladder drainage of the exocrine secretions (systemic-bladder [S-B]). To develop a more physiologic procedure, we performed pancreas transplantations with portal venous delivery of insulin and enteric drainage of the exocrine secretions (portal-enteric [P-E]). Methods, During an Ii-month period we prospectively alternated 32 consecutive pancreas transplant recipients to either S-B (n = 16) or P-E (n = 16) drainage with standardized immunosuppression. Results. Patient, kidney, and pancreas graft survival rates after simultaneous kidney, and pancreas transplantation were 91 % S-B versus 32 % P-E, 91 % S-B versus 92 % P-E, and 82 % S-B versus 92 % P-E, respectively. Pancreas graft survival rates after solitary pancreas transplantation were 80% S-B versus 75% PIE. There were no graft losses either to immunologic or infections complications in either group, but the incidence of acute rejection was slightly higher in the S-B group (44 % S-B vs 31 % P-E, P = NS). The cost and length of the initial hospital stay were similar between groups. The incidence of operative complications, major infections, and cytomegalovirus infections were likewise comparable. However; the S-B group was characterized by a slight increase in the number of readmissions, urinary tract infections, and urologic complications. Furthermore, metabolic acidosis and dehydration were more common in the S-B group. Conclusions. Pancreas transplantation with P-E drainage can be performed with short-term results comparable to those of transplantation with S-B drainage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available