Compative study of bladder versus XXXX in pancreas transplantation.

@entity1 @entity8 @entity1494 @entity1320 @entity293 @entity1681
INTRODUCTION: There is some controversy concerning the choice of best technique for drainage of exocrine secretions in pancreas transplantation. We compared @entity1 with @entity1494 ( @entity1494 ) versus those with @entity1681 ( @entity1681 ). @entity1 AND METHODS: From March 1995 to September 2008, 118 @entity1 (68 @entity1 and 50 @entity1 ) of overall mean age of 37.8 +/- 7.8 years underwent pancreas transplantation. There were 109 simultaneous @entity8 . Recipients were divided in a @entity1494 (n = 66 @entity1 ) and an @entity1681 group (n = 52). RESULTS: Donor characteristics were similar in both groups. Thirty-two @entity1 (48.5%) of the @entity1494 group versus none in the @entity1681 group experienced @entity293 ( @entity293 ; P < .001), and 16 @entity1 (24.2%) @entity1494 versus 15 (29.4%) @entity1681 developed @entity1320 (P = NS). The overall rate of relaparotomies was 33.9% (n = 40): 34.8% (n = 23) in the @entity1494 versus 32.7% (n = 17) in the @entity1681 group (P = NS). Thirty @entity1 (25.4%) lost their pancreas grafts: 21 (31.8%) in the @entity1494 group versus 9 (17.3%) in the @entity1681 group (P = .055). The acute rejection rates were 12.7%; namely, 15.2% in the @entity1494 versus 9.8% in the @entity1681 (P = NS). Three-year @entity1 and graft survivals were equivalent in both groups: 96.1% and 65.3% in the @entity1494 versus 89.0% and 74.0% in the @entity1681 group, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: @entity1681 is a good alternative to @entity1494 for drainage of pancreatic graft exocrine secretions because both techniques have the same @entity1 and graft survival, but @entity1494 is associated with a significantly higher rate of @entity293 .
