Search

The results of the isolated intestinal grafts were compared with those of composite grafts (intestinal graft + liver) in a series of 18 transplantations performed in 17 children; 5 isolated intestinal grafts, 12 hepatointestinal grafts, and 1 multivisceral graft. Causes of intestinal failure were short bowel syndrome (n = 13), motility disorders (n = 2) and congenital epithelial disorders (n = 2). Transplantation was indicated due to end-stage liver disease (n = 14), loss of venous access (n = 2), untreatable diarrhea (n = 1) and high morbidity associated with a poor quality of life (n = 1). Six children, all with a composite graft, died after transplantation due to lymphoma (n = 2), sepsis (n = 1); intraabdominal bleeding (n = 1); pneumonia (n = 1); and overwhelming adenoviral infection (n = 1). Digestive autonomy was achieved in 16 of 18 grafts, the 11 surviving children are free of parenteral nutrition with a reasonably good quality of life. In conclusion, intestinal transplantation is a viable therapeutic alternative for children with permanent intestinal failure. The results of transplantation with an isolated intestine are clearly better that those with a composite graft.

Unlabelled: We examined whether the results in living-related hepatic transplantation (LRLT) are better than those from a cadaveric donor (CDLT)., Material and Methods: The last 27 consecutive LRLT, performed from 1998 to 2005, were compared with 27 CDLT matched for age, weight, date, and diagnosis. Grafts in LRLT group were left lateral segment (n = 22), left lobe (n = 3), and right lobe (n = 2). In the CDLT group, the grafts were split in situ (n = 10), hepatic reduction (n = 9) and whole liver (n = 8). We analyzed the actuarial survivals (grafts and children), retransplantation, primary nonfunction, initial graft malfunction (liver enzymes >2000 U/L), surgical complications, rejection, and resource consumption., Results: Patient survivals at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years were 100%, 96%, and 96% in LRLT and 100%, 100%, and 100% in CDLT (P = NS). Graft survivals were 93%, 89%, and 89% versus 96%, 96%, and 96%, respectively (P = NS). Complications were biliary complications (LRLT, 25% vs CDLT, 3%; P = .021); portal vein thrombosis (LRLT, 7% vs CDLT, 3%; NS), and hepatic artery thrombosis (LRLT, 0% vs CDLT, 3%; NS). The overall incidence of acute rejection was slightly higher (NS) in LRLT (LRLT, 18% vs CDLT, 11%; NS). Liver enzyme levels were higher in the CDLT group, but initial malfunction rate was not statistically different. Regarding resource consumption: blood product needs were higher in LRLT (P < .05) and hospital stay and ICU stay were longer, although not significantly, among LRLT., Conclusions: The results in LRLT among children are similar to those obtained in CDLT. We found a trend towards less initial graft malfunction in LRLT. Blood product needs were higher in LRLT. Hospital and ICU stay were longer, but not significantly different in LRLT. The benefits of LRLT are saving a scarce resource: a cadaveric donor liver graft.

Aim: Analyze the results of a paediatric intestinal transplantation (IT) program in Spain., Patients: During an 5-year period, 18 children were included as candidates for IT. The causes for intestinal failure (IF) were short bowel syndrome (n=13), motility disorders (n=3), and congenital epithelial disorders (n=2). Nine children were admitted for a combined liver-small bowel transplant (LSBT), seven for an isolated intestinal transplantation (IIT) and two for a multivisceral transplantation (MVT). In three of the candidates for IIT the indication had to be changed to LSBT because of progression of the liver damage., Results: Eight candidates are on the waiting list: four for LSBT, two for IIT, and two for MVT. Four children died before transplantation. All were children under 1 year and candidates for LSBT. One child died during an attempted MVT. Five children underwent transplantation. Grafts were IIT in two and LSBT in three. Of these children, two are on a normal diet (respective follow-up times: 40 and 18 months), two died, both with functioning liver and intestinal grafts (hemorrage after liver biopsy and lymphoproliferative disease), and one developed an untreatable rejection that lead to loss of the intestinal graft; currently, she is on the waiting list for LSBT., Conclusions: The morbidity and mortality of IT are high, but it is the only possible treatment for children in IF who cannot be adequately managed with parenteral nutrition. A severe problem is the the scarcity of suitable donors for the very low weight children who are candidates for LSBT.

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze the results of living donor in a pediatric liver transplantation program., Patients: Twenty-six living donor liver transplantations were performed in children from 0.5 to 14.8 years of age. The main indication was biliary atresia (72%) followed by tumors (2 hepatoblastomas and 1 hepatocarcinoma). Left lateral segments were used in 23 (1 transformed into a monosegment), 1 left lobe was used in 1, and right lobes were used in 2. Arterial reconstruction employed saphenous venous grafts in the first 3 cases and end-to-end anastomoses with a microsurgical technique in the following 22 cases., Results: There has been no major morbidity in the donors, with a median hospitalization of 6 days. Four grafts have been lost; 2 in the first 3 cases. In only 1 case, the graft loss was related to the procedure saphenous venous graft thrombosis). Early biliary complications were frequent (23%). Six month, 1 year, and 5 year graft and patient survival rates were 91%, 85%, and 85% and 100%, 96%, and 96%, respectively., Conclusions: Living donor liver transplantation is an excellent option for transplantation in children.