4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Use of the Abdominal Rectus Fascia as a Nonvascularized Allograft for Abdominal Wall Closure After Liver, Intestinal, and Multivisceral Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 87, 期 12, 页码 1884-1888

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a7697a

关键词

Intestine; Transplantation; Abdominal wall; Allograft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Abdominal wall closure management has become an important challenge during recipient candidate selection, at the time of donor to recipient matching and during the planning of the surgical procedure for intestinal or multiorgan transplantation. Different strategies have been proposed to overcome the lack of abdominal domain: to reduce the graft size or to increase the abdominal domain. Based on the recent concept of using an acellular dermis matrix (Alloderm) and the availability of abdominal wall tissues from the same organ donor, we conceived the idea of using the fascia of the rectus Muscle (FoRM) as a nonvascularized tissue allograft. Materials and Methods. This is a retrospective report of a series of 16 recipients of FoRM as part of a liver, intestinal, or multiorgan transplant procedure performed between October 2004 and May 2008 at three different transplant centers. Results. Of the 16 recipients of FoRM, all but one case was performed during their transplantation (four multivisceral two modified multivisceral, three isolated intestine, and two livers). Five patients underwent a retransplant surgery (two livers, two multivisceral, and one isolated intestine). Abdominal wall infection was present in 7 of 16 cases. Nine patients are still alive. No deaths were related to wound infection. Long-term survival showed complete wound healing and only one ventral hernia. Discussion. The use of a nonvascularized FoRM is a novel and simple surgical option to resolve complex abdominal wall defects in liver/intestinal/multivisceral transplant recipients when it can be covered with the recipient skin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据