Sequential portal and arterial revascularization (SPAr) is the most common method of graft reperfusion at liver transplantation (LT), contemporaneous portal and arterial revascularization (CPAr) was used to reduce arte- rial ischemia to the bile ducts. Aim of this pilot study is to prospectively compare SPAr (group 1 #38) versus CPAr (group 2 #42) in 80 consecutive LTs. Biliary anastomosis was always duct to duct [T-tube in 21 % of cases (p = 0.83) in both groups]. CPAr had longer warm ische- mia 61 ± 10 versus 39 ± 13 min, p \ 0.0001, while SPAr had longer arterial ischemia 96 ± 39 min (p = 0.0001). No PNF while DGF was encountered in 10 versus 5 % (p = 0.32). One-year graft and patient’s survival were respectively 87 versus 93 % and 83 versus 88 % in groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.31 and p = 0.39). At a median follow-up of 19 ± 8 versus 17 ± 8 months (p = 0.24), biliary compli- cationswere28%,being39%ingroup1and19%in group 2 (p = 0.04). Anastomotic stenoses were present in 11 versus 12 % (p = 0.84), biliary leakage in 5 versus 5 % (p = 0.72) and intrahepatic non-anastomotic biliary stric- tures in 23 versus 0 % (p = 0.0008) in groups 1 and 2. CPAr is safe and feasible and reduces the incidence of intrahepatic biliary strictures by decreasing the duration of arterial ischemia to the intrahepatic bile ducts.

Protection of the intrahepatic biliary tree by contemporaneous portal and arterial reperfusion: results of a prospective randomized pilot study

BACCARANI, Umberto;BRESADOLA, Vittorio;DELLA ROCCA, Giorgio;RISALITI, Andrea;
2012-01-01

Abstract

Sequential portal and arterial revascularization (SPAr) is the most common method of graft reperfusion at liver transplantation (LT), contemporaneous portal and arterial revascularization (CPAr) was used to reduce arte- rial ischemia to the bile ducts. Aim of this pilot study is to prospectively compare SPAr (group 1 #38) versus CPAr (group 2 #42) in 80 consecutive LTs. Biliary anastomosis was always duct to duct [T-tube in 21 % of cases (p = 0.83) in both groups]. CPAr had longer warm ische- mia 61 ± 10 versus 39 ± 13 min, p \ 0.0001, while SPAr had longer arterial ischemia 96 ± 39 min (p = 0.0001). No PNF while DGF was encountered in 10 versus 5 % (p = 0.32). One-year graft and patient’s survival were respectively 87 versus 93 % and 83 versus 88 % in groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.31 and p = 0.39). At a median follow-up of 19 ± 8 versus 17 ± 8 months (p = 0.24), biliary compli- cationswere28%,being39%ingroup1and19%in group 2 (p = 0.04). Anastomotic stenoses were present in 11 versus 12 % (p = 0.84), biliary leakage in 5 versus 5 % (p = 0.72) and intrahepatic non-anastomotic biliary stric- tures in 23 versus 0 % (p = 0.0008) in groups 1 and 2. CPAr is safe and feasible and reduces the incidence of intrahepatic biliary strictures by decreasing the duration of arterial ischemia to the intrahepatic bile ducts.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Umbe DRG 2012.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Altro materiale allegato
Licenza: Non pubblico
Dimensione 505.1 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
505.1 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
10 1007_s13304-012-0164-1.pdf

non disponibili

Dimensione 505.1 kB
Formato Unknown
505.1 kB Unknown   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11390/902291
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact