Comparison of rejection rate and functional outcome of small bowel transplantation alone or in conjunction with the ileocecal valve versus combined small and large bowel transplantation

Vandad Raofi, Dawn M. Holman, Ty B. Dunn, Magali J. Fontaine, Michael M. Mihalov, Joseph M. Vitello, Massimo Asolati, Enrico Benedetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Preservation of the ileocecal valve improves absorptive function and decreases the amount of small bowel needed for survival in patients with short gut syndrome. We compared the results of small and large bowel transplant (SLBTx), small bowel transplant only (SBTx), and SBTx with the ileocecal valve (ICVTx) in a porcine model. Total enterectomy was performed on 18 Yorkshire-Landrace pigs followed by orthotopic SBLTx (n = 6), SBTx (n = 6), and ICVTx (n = 6). A jejunostomy and an ileostomy were constructed for biopsies. Overall mean survival was 17 d with no statistically significant difference between groups. Rejection was seen in 6/6 SLBTx, 4/6 SBTx, and 4/6 ICVTx recipients. Acute rejection was seen in 84.3% of SLBTx, 52.3% of SBTx, and 42.5% of the ICVTx mucosal biopsy samples. Two cases of intra-abdominal infection were in the ICVTx group only. Weight loss was 147 g/d in the SLBTx group, 643 g/d in the SBTx group, and 393 g/d in the ICVTx group. While the functional outcome after SLBTx and ICVTx was noticeably better than the SBTx group, the increased rejection and intra-abdominal infection rates make transplanting the large bowel or the ileocecal valve a less attractive clinical option.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)389-394
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Transplantation
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999

Keywords

  • Bowel transplantation
  • Early function
  • Ileocecal valve
  • Rejection

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of rejection rate and functional outcome of small bowel transplantation alone or in conjunction with the ileocecal valve versus combined small and large bowel transplantation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this