This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Outcomes of pancreas retransplantation in patients with pancreas graft failure. BJS 2018; 105: 1816-1824.
Published: 14th July 2018
Authors: S. Gasteiger, B. Cardini, G. Göbel, R. Oberhuber, F. Messner, T. Resch et al.
Background
Pancreas retransplantation is still a controversial option after loss of a pancreatic graft. This article describes the experience of pancreas retransplantation at a high‐volume centre.
Method
This was a retrospective observational study of all pancreas retransplantations performed in a single centre between 1997 and 2013. Pancreatic graft loss was defined by the return to insulin dependence. Risk factors for graft loss as well as patient and graft survival were analysed using logistic and time‐to‐event regression models.
Results
Of 409 pancreas transplantations undertaken, 52 (12·7 per cent) were identified as pancreas retransplantations. After a median follow‐up of 65·0 (range 0·8–174·3) months, 1‐ and 5‐year graft survival rates were 79 and 69 per cent respectively, and 1‐ and 5‐year patient survival rates were 96 and 89 per cent. During the entire follow‐up, 22 grafts (42 per cent) were lost. Patient survival was not associated with any of the donor‐ or recipient‐related factors investigated. Five‐year graft survival was better after simultaneous kidney–pancreas retransplantation than pancreas retransplantation alone: 80 per cent (16 of 20) versus 63 per cent (20 of 32) (P = 0·226). Acute rejection (odds ratio 4·49, 95 per cent c.i. 1·59 to 12·68; P = 0·005) and early surgical complications (OR 3·29, 1·09 to 9·99, P = 0·035) were identified as factors with an independent negative effect on graft survival.
Conclusion
Pancreas retransplantation may be considered for patients whose previous graft has failed.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Systematic review
Authors: L. Scholten, T. F. Stoop, M. Del Chiaro, O. R. Busch, C. van Eijck, I. Q. Molenaar et al.
Original article
Authors: S. Lof, A. L. Moekotte, B. Al‐Sarireh, B. Ammori, S. Aroori, D. Durkin et al.
Systematic review
Authors: M. Tanaka, A. L. Mihaljevic, P. Probst, M. Heckler, U. Klaiber, U. Heger et al.
Original article
Authors: G. Berardi, D. Aghayan, Å. A. Fretland, H. Elberm, F. Cipriani, A. Spagnoli et al.
Original article
Authors: W. Jung, T. Park, Y. Kim, H. Park, Y. Han, J. He et al.
Original article
Authors: B. Garlipp, P. Gibbs, G. A. Van Hazel, R. Jeyarajah, R. C. G. Martin, C. J. Bruns et al.
Original article
Authors: S. Otsuka, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, T. Mizuno, J. Yamaguchi et al.
Systematic review
Authors: X.‐Y. Wang, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Geng, J. Lin, K. Ma et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Filmann, D. Walter, E. Schadde, C. Bruns, T. Keck, H. Lang et al.
Original article
Authors: Å. A. Fretland, V. J. Dagenborg, G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv, D. L. Aghayan, A. M. Kazaryan, L. Barkhatov et al.
Original article
Authors: B. V. van Rosmalen, A. J. Klompenhouwer, J. Jaap de Graeff, M. P. D. Haring, V. E. de Meijer, L. Rifai et al.
Original article
Authors: A. Pulvirenti, A. Pea, N. Rezaee, C. Gasparini, G. Malleo, M. J. Weiss et al.