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 | 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.