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

• Published in: Clinical transplantation Vol. 13; no. 5; pp. 389 - 394
• Main Authors: Raofi, Vandad, Holman, Dawn M, Dunn, Ty B, Fontaine, Magali J, Mihalov, Michael M, Vitello, Joseph M, Asolati, Massimo, Benedetti, Enrico
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen Munksgaard International Publishers 01-10-1999; Blackwell
• Subjects: Acute Disease; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; bowel transplantation; early function; Graft Rejection; Graft vs Host Disease - etiology; ileocecal valve; Ileocecal Valve - physiopathology; Ileocecal Valve - transplantation; Infection - etiology; Intestine, Large - physiopathology; Intestine, Large - transplantation; Intestine, Small - physiopathology; Intestine, Small - transplantation; Medical sciences; Postoperative Complications; rejection; Stomach, duodenum, intestine, rectum, anus; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Surgery of the digestive system; Swine; Weight Loss; Graft(material); Transplantation; Homotransplantation; Small intestine; Morbidity; Incidence; Pig; Rejection; Vertebrata; Mammalia; Functional recovery; Surgery; Animal; Complication; Ileocecal valve; Artiodactyla; Colon; Technique; Ungulata; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0902-0063; 1399-0012
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-0012.1999.130504.x

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.