4.5 Article

Choledochoduodenostomy is a Safe Alternative to Roux-en-Y Choledochojejunostomy for Biliary Reconstruction in Liver Transplantation

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1022-1027

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-008-9885-1

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bile duct reconstruction during liver transplantation is usually performed by a duct-to-duct anastomosis or a Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy (CDJ). Direct anastomosis of the bile duct to the duodenum (choledochoduodenostomy-CDD) is another option for biliary reconstruction. This technique has been used with good outcome for the treatment of choledochal cysts, ampullary stenosis, and major bile duct injuries; however, there is little published experience with CDD in liver transplantation. We provide preliminary evidence that CDD is a safe technique for biliary anastomosis in liver transplant recipients. From September 2000 to August 2007 a total of 619 adult first-time cadaveric or living donor liver transplants were performed at the University of Colorado Health and Science Center. Bile duct repair was performed by direct end-to-end anastomosis in 466 patients and by choledocoenterostomy in the remaining 153 patients, 82 of whom were cadaveric recipients. The cadaveric choledocoenterostomy patients were divided into two groups: CDD in 25 and CDJ in 57 recipients. There were no significant differences in the 1-year patient or graft survival between the cadaveric groups. The 1-year patient survival was 100% in the CDD group and 97.1% in the CDJ group. The CDD group did not experience more surgical complications compared to the CDJ group. Choledochoduodenostomy is a safe alternative to CDJ biliary anastomosis when a duct-to-duct anastomosis cannot be performed. There is no significant difference in mortality, graft survival, or biliary complications. In addition, CDD offers the advantage of postoperative access to the billiary system by endoscopy and avoids complications associated with the CDJ bowel anastomosis.

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

4.5
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