Advertisement
Surgery
Advanced searchSave search
Original communication| Volume 109, ISSUE 5, P663-670, May 1991

A comparison of portal versus systemic venous drainage in the pig small-bowel allograft recipient

  • Hironori Kaneko
    Correspondence
    Reprint requests: Robert T. Schweizer, MD, Department of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT 06115.
    Affiliations
    Surgical Research Laboratory and Transplant Service, Department of Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn. USA

    University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn. USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Michael A. Fischman
    Affiliations
    Surgical Research Laboratory and Transplant Service, Department of Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn. USA

    University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn. USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Thomas M. Buckley
    Affiliations
    Surgical Research Laboratory and Transplant Service, Department of Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn. USA

    University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn. USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Robert T. Schweizer
    Affiliations
    Surgical Research Laboratory and Transplant Service, Department of Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn. USA

    University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Conn. USA
    Search for articles by this author
DOI:https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:0039606091904017
A comparison of portal versus systemic venous drainage in the pig small-bowel allograft recipient
Previous ArticleLong-term cholesterol feeding stimulates increased bile phospholipids and gallbladder prostanoid synthesis
Next ArticlePathologic and hemodynamic sequelae of unilobar biliary obstruction and associated liver atrophy
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      The influence of portal versus systemic venous drainage on liver function, nutrition, and metabolism was studied in the pig small bowel allograft model. A total of 17 pigs received orthotopic small-bowel transplants with either portal or systemic venous drainage. There was no difference in survival between groups. No significant hepatic or metabolic abnormalities that are known to occur in total portosystemic shunting were seen in the group that underwent systemic venous drainage. Alterations in ammonia levels and amino acid analysis between both groups were minor. Histologic evidence of liver atrophy was not observed. Significant nutritional abnormalities were not seen, although weight gain was compromised in both groups. Our findings suggest that systemic venous drainage would be preferable in small-bowel transplantation because it is technically easier and safer to perform in the clinical setting.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Raju S
        • Didlake RH
        • Cayirli M
        • et al.
        Experimental small bowel transplantation utilizing cyclosporine.
        Transplantation. 1984; 38: 561-566
        • Reznick RK
        • Craddock GN
        • Langer B
        • et al.
        Structure and function of small bowel allografts in the dog: immunosuppression with cyclosporin A.
        Can J Surg. 1982; 25: 51-55
        • Diliz-Perez HS
        • McClure J
        • Bedetti C
        • et al.
        Successful small bowel allotransplantation in dogs with cyclosporine and prednisone.
        Transplantation. 1984; 37: 126-129
        • Kirkman RL
        • Madara JL
        • Lear PA
        • Ythier A
        The utility of cyclosporine in small bowel transplantation.
        Transplant Proc. 1985; 17: 1401-1402
        • Hatcher PA
        • Deaton DH
        • Bollinger RR
        Transplantation of the entire small bowel in inbred rats using cyclosporine.
        Transplantation. 1987; 43: 478-484
        • Kaneko H
        • Hancock W
        • Schweizer RT
        Progress in experimental porcine small bowel transplantation.
        Arch Surg. 1989; 124: 587-592
        • Grant D
        • Duff J
        • Zhong R
        • et al.
        Successful intestinal transplantation in pigs treated with cyclosporine.
        Transplantation. 1988; 45: 279-284
        • Koltun WA
        • Madara JL
        • Smith RJ
        • Kirkman RL
        Metabolic aspects of small bowel transplantation in inbred rats.
        J Surg Res. 1987; 42: 341-347
        • Schraut WH
        • Abraham VS
        • Lee KKW
        Portal versus systemic venous drainage for small bowel allografts.
        Surgery. 1985; 98: 579-586
        • Schraut WH
        • Abraham VS
        • Lee KKW
        Portal versus caval venous drainage of small bowel allografts: technical and metabolic consequences.
        Surgery. 1986; 99: 193-198
        • Rosemurgy AS
        • Schraut WH
        Small bowel allografts: sequence of histologic changes in acute and chronic rejection.
        Am J Surg. 1986; 151: 470-475
        • Lauterburg BH
        • Sautter V
        • Preisig R
        • Bircher J
        Hepatic functional deterioration after portal caval shunt in the rat.
        Gastroenterology. 1976; 71: 221-227
        • Starzl TE
        • Francavilla A
        • Halgrimson CG
        • et al.
        The origin, hormonal nature, and action of hepatatrophic substances in portal venous blood.
        Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973; 137: 179-199
        • Starzl TE
        • Lee IY
        • Porter KA
        • Putnam CW
        The influence of portal blood upon lipid metabolism in normal and diabetic dogs and baboons.
        Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975; 140: 381-396
        • Fisher B
        • Szuch P
        • Levine M
        • Saffer E
        • Fisher ER
        The intestine as a source of a portal blood factor responsible for liver regeneration.
        Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973; 137: 210-214
        • Shaffer D
        • Diflo T
        • Love W
        • Clowe GHA
        • Maki T
        • Monaco AP
        Immunologic and metabolic effects of caval versus portal venous drainage in small bowel transplantation.
        Surgery. 1988; 104: 518-524
        • Raju S
        • Fujiwara H
        • Grogan JB
        • Achord JL
        Long-term nutritional function of orthotopic small bowel autotransplants.
        J Surg Res. 1989; 46: 142-146
        • Fischer JE
        • Funovics JM
        • Aguirre A
        • et al.
        The role of plasma amino acids in hepatic encephalopathy.
        Surgery. 1975; 78: 276-290
        • Sankary HN
        • Sarfeh IJ
        • Kulovich S
        • Leslie J
        • Mason GR
        The source of hepatic blood supply influences plasma amino acid patterns.
        Curr Surg. 1985; 42: 304-306
        • Schraut WH
        • Lee KKW
        • Sitrin M
        Recipient growth and nutritional status following transplantation of segmental small bowel allografts.
        J Surg Res. 1987; 43: 1-9
        • Ballinger WF
        • Christy MG
        • Ashby WB
        Autotransplantation of the small intestine: the effect of denervation.
        Surgery. 1962; 52: 151-164
        • Kirkman RL
        Small bowel transplantation.
        in: 2nd ed. Progress in transplantation. vol 3. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh1986: 175-198
        • Schraut WH
        Current status of small bowel transplantation.
        Gastroenterology. 1988; 94: 525-538

      Article info

      Publication history

      Accepted: August 22, 1990

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:0039606091904017

      Copyright

      © 1991 Published by Elsevier Inc.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX