125 Cases of duodenoduodenostomy in pancreas transplantation: a single‐centre experience of an alternative enteric drainage. (24th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Walter, Martin; Jazra, Martin; Kykalos, Stylianos; Kuehn, Petra; Michalski, Stefan; Klein, Thomas; Wunsch, Andreas; Viebahn, Richard; Schenker, Peter
• Is Part Of: Transplant international. Volume 27:Number 8(2014:Aug.)
• Page Start: 805
• Page End: 815
• Publication Date: 2014-05-24
• Subjects: Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; 617.95405
• DOI: 10.1111/tri.12337
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0934-0874

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="tri12337-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>Several exocrine drainage procedures have been successfully developed to perform pancreas transplantation (PT). Retroperitoneal graft placement allows exocrine drainage via direct duodenoduodenostomy (DD). This technique provides easy access for endoscopic surveillance and biopsy. A total of 241 PT procedures were performed in our centre between 2002 and 2012. DD was performed in 125 patients, and duodenojejunostomy (DJ) in 116 patients. We retrospectively compared our experience with these two types of enteric drainage, focusing on graft and patient survivals, as well as postoperative complications. With a mean follow‐up of 59 months, both groups demonstrated comparable patient and graft survivals. 14 (11%) of 125 cases in the DD group and 21 (18%) of 116 cases in the DJ group had pancreatic graft loss (<italic>P</italic> = 0.142). Graft thrombosis [5 (4%) vs. 18 (16%) <italic>P</italic> = 0.002], anastomotic insufficiency [2 (1.6%) vs. 8 (7%) <italic>P</italic> = 0.052] and relaparotomy [52 (41%) vs. 56 (48%) <italic>P</italic> = 0.29] occurred more frequently in the DJ group, whereas gastrointestinal bleeding [14 (11%) vs. 4 (3%) <italic>P</italic> = 0.026] occurred more often in the DD group. DD is a feasible and safe technique in PT, with no increase in enteric complications. It is equivalent to other established techniques and extends the feasibility of anastomotic sites, especially in recipients who have undergone a second transplantation.</p> </abstract>