Search

Background The organ shortage mandates that grafts with complex vascular lesions be considered for graft rescue. Methods Surgical graft rescue was attempted in 8 patients bearing 8 kidneys and 2 pancreata that showed complex vascular lesions deemed not suitable for interventional radiology procedures. Results All procedures but 1 were performed under elective conditions. Seven grafts were repaired in situ, while cooling the organ through retrograde venous perfusion, and 3 kidneys were explanted, repaired extracorporeally, and retransplanted. All vascular reconstructions remain patent after a mean follow-up period of 3.3 years (±2.1 years). Conclusions Careful patient selection, multidisciplinary evaluation, and personalized surgical technique may allow the rescue of kidney and pancreas grafts with complex vascular lesions that, otherwise, would be lost.

The preferential use of tacrolimus (Prograf) over cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKTx) is mainly based on historical, retrospective studies. We herein report the 3-year results of a single-center, prospective, randomized comparison of the two calcineurin inhibitors in the setting of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-based immunosuppression and portal drainage of pancreas allografts.Between May 2001 and August 2004, 47 SPKTx recipients who were stratified by recipient sex, were alternatively assigned to treatment with Neoral (n = 22) or Prograf (n = 25). Concurrent immunosuppression included induction treatment with basiliximab and maintenance with MMF and steroids.After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, all patients remained in the study arm into which they were initially enrolled. No pancreas rejection episode was observed. One acute kidney rejection was recorded in the Neoral arm (4.5%) as compared with 7 (28.0%) including one steroid-resistant episode, in the Prograf arm (P = .03). The cumulative incidence of adverse events was 31.8% (n = 7) in the Neoral arm compared with 92.0% (n = 23) in the Prograf arm (P.0001). One patient died in each study arm. Patient, pancreas, and kidney survivals overlapped at 1- and 3-years posttransplant, namely all 95.4% for the Neoral arm compared with 95.8%, 91.8%, and 95.8%, respectively, for the Prograf arm (P.05).We conclude that in MMF-based immunosuppression there is no convincing evidence that Prograf should be preferred to Neoral in SPKTx.

Background We have recently described a technique for retroperitoneal pancreas transplantation (RPTx) with portal-enteric drainage (PED). Further experience with 118 RPTx is detailed herein. Methods Between April 2001 and August 2004, 118 patients underwent RPTx with PED among 125 recipients (94.4%) scheduled for this procedure. Surgical complications and patient and graft survivals were recorded prospectively. Results After a minimum follow-up period of 3 months (mean 27.8 ± 13.0 months), 18 recipients (15.2%) required relaparotomy because of bleeding (n = 6; 5.1%), allograft pancreatectomy due to either hyperacute/accelerated rejection (n = 3; 2.5%) or vein thrombosis (n = 3; 2.5%), leak from duodenojejunal anastomosis (n = 2; 1.7%), bleeding and vein thrombectomy (n = 1; 0.8%), or small bowel occlusion due to bezoar (n = 1; 0.8%). One patient had a negative relaparotomy and one underwent two relaparotomies. Most patients with hemorrhage (5/7; 71.4%) were recipients of solitary pancreas grafts managed with heparin infusion. No venous thrombi extended into recipient’s superior mesenteric vein. Nonocclusive venous thrombosis was diagnosed with duplex ultrasonography and confirmed at computed tomography in seven patients (5.1%). None of these patients lost graft function. Ten patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with peripancreatic fluid collections, all successfully treated by observation (n = 7) or percutaneous drainage (n = 3). Enteric bleeding occurred in eight recipients (6.8%). Overall, 1-year patient and pancreas survival rates were 97.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Conclusions We conclude that RPTx with PED is a technical option that may be included in the repertoire of pancreas transplant surgeons.

Background There are no data regarding the outcome of solitary pancreas transplantation (SPT) with portal venous drainage (PVD) following unsuccessful islet transplantation (ITx) after multiple islet injections into the portal vein. We herein describe the outcome of three SPTs with PVD performed after failed ITx. Methods Between October 2002 and December 2003, three SPTs with PVD were performed following unsuccessful ITx with multiple intraportal islet injections (mean 2.3 injections: range 2 to 3 injections) in two women and one man, aged 26, 49, and 60 years. Panel reactive antibody titer was 0% in all recipients. Immunosuppression was based on induction with either basiliximab (n = 2) or thymoglobulin (n = 1); maintenance therapy included steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus. During the recipient operation, the absence of venous hypertension was established by direct measurement of portal pressure, before making the final decision to drain the pancreas into the portal vein. Results Portal pressures were 16 cm H 2 O, 14 cm H 2 O, and 13 cm H 2 O. Pancreas grafts were reperfused after a period of cold preservation of 638, 695, and 835 minutes, respectively. All grafts showed immediate endocrine function, mantaining their recipients insulin-independent for longest follow-ups of 8, 21, and 23 months, respectively. One recipient developed a nonocclusive venous thrombus that resolved with intravenous heparin infusion. Conclusions Our experience showed that unsuccessful ITx with multiple intraportal injections does not necessarily preclude the possibility of subsequent successful SPT with PVD. Further experience is needed to define contraindications and possible complications of SPT with PVD following ITx.