Retroperitoneal pancreas transplantation with portal-enteric drainage

• Published in: Transplantation proceedings Vol. 36; no. 3; pp. 571 - 574
• Main Authors: Boggi, U, Vistoli, F, Del Chiaro, M, Signori, S, Marchetti, P, Coppelli, A, Giannarelli, R, Rizzo, G, Mosca, F
• Format: Journal Article Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.04.2004; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Cadaver; Drainage; Female; Graft Survival; Humans; Kidney Transplantation - methods; Liver, biliary tract, pancreas, portal circulation, spleen; Male; Medical sciences; Pancreas Transplantation - methods; Pancreas Transplantation - mortality; Pancreas Transplantation - physiology; Portal Vein - surgery; Retroperitoneal Space; Retrospective Studies; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the digestive system; Survival Analysis; Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods; Tissue Donors; Drainage; Human; Retroperitoneal; Treatment; Bypass; Surgery; Gut; Graft; Transplantation; Portal vein; Homotransplantation; Pancreas
• ISSN: 0041-1345; 1873-2623
• DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.02.033

Portal-enteric drainage (PED) is the latest refinement in the surgical technique for pancreas transplantation (PTx). We herein describe the results of a modified technique for PED that places the pancreas in a totally retroperitoneal position. Between April 2001 and June 2003, 79 PTx were performed using a retroperitoneal PED technique. No graft was lost due to surgical complications and the relaparotomy rate was 11.4%. Mean hospital stay averaged 25.9 days (±14.4 days) with a 30-day redamission rate of 12.7%. One graft was lost due to delayed (6 months) arterial thrombosis and three to acute rejection. The overall 1-year patient and graft survivals were 98.7% and 93.7%, respectively. Our data confirm that PED of pancreas grafts is associated with low morbidity and mortality rates. Whether retroperitoneal graft placement has actual advantages over the “classical” intraperitoneal position remains to be ascertained.