4.6 Article

Improved islet yield and function with ductal injection of University of Wisconsin solution before pancreas preservation.

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 75, 期 12, 页码 1965-1969

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.TP.0000068871.09469.E0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Ensuring sufficient islet yield from preserved pancreases is a critical step in clinical islet transplantation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether pancreatic ductal injection, performed at procurement, using a small volume of preservation solution before cold storage (ductal preservation method) would improve islet yield and function from rat pancreases preserved for 6 and 24 hr. Materials and Methods. Islets were isolated from Lewis rats. Pancreases were classified into five groups: fresh (group 1); preserved for 6 hr in University of Wisconsin solution without and with ductal preservation (groups 2 and 3); and preserved for 24 hr in University of Wisconsin solution without and with ductal preservation (groups 4 and 5). We assessed islet yield, function, and viability of pancreatic ductal cells. Results. Islet yields per pancreas in groups 1 to 5 were 2010 +/- 774, 674 +/- 450, 1418 +/- 528, 527 +/- 263, and 1655 618 (islet equivalent) (+/-SD), respectively. Stimulation indices in groups 1 to 5 were 11.97 +/- 3.17, 6.48 +/- 4.04, 12.44 +/- 5.65, 2.56 +/- 2.03, and 5.55 +/- 2.71. Functional success rates in groups 1 to 5 were 100%, 0%, 100%, 0%, and 66.7%. Percentages of nonviable pancreatic duct cells in groups 1 to 5 were 3.8 +/- 2.7%, 59.7 +/- 4.4%, 19.5 +/- 7.3%,64.7 +/- 4.5%, and 17.2 +/- 2.6%. In all experiments, the differences were significant between the groups without versus the groups with ductal preservation (P<0.05, group 2 vs. group 3 and group 4 vs. group 5). Conclusions. Ductal preservation improved islet yield and function after 6 and 24 hr of preservation. Well-preserved pancreatic ducts maintained good distribution of collagenase solution.

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