Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7794066›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery1995

Results of pancreas transplantation with portal venous and enteric drainage.

A O Gaber, M H Shokouh-Amiri, D K Hathaway, L Hammontree, A E Kitabchi, L W Gaber, M F Saad, L G Britt

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Imaging in pancreatic transplants.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2014
    Article
  11. Pancreas transplantation.Gut and liver · 2010
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Pancreatic Transplantation: Beta Cell Replacement.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2004
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A O GaberDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Tennessee, Memphis, USA.
M H Shokouh-Amiri
D K Hathaway
L Hammontree
A E Kitabchi
L W Gaber
M F Saad
L G Britt
University of Tennessee Health Science Center · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

NCRR NIH HHS RR 00211-26
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe standard method for pancreatic transplantation involves drainage of exocrine secretions into the urinary bladder with venous outflow into the systemic circulation. Despite the high success rate associated with this approach, it often leads to complications, including chemical cystitis, reflux pancreatitis, metabolic acidosis, and hyperinsulinemia. The authors developed a new technique of pancreatic transplantation with portal drainage of endocrine secretions and enteric drainage of exocrine secretions (PE), which theoretically should be more physiologic. PROCEDURES: All patients were insulin-dependent diabetics with end-stage renal disease who underwent combined kidney-pancreas transplantation. Between 1990 and 1994, 19 patients have been transplanted using intraperitoneal placement of the pancreas allograft with exocrine drainage into a Roux-en Y loop and venous drainage into the portal circulations (PE). A comparison group of all patients undergoing standard systemic-bladder (SB) transplantation between April 1989 and March 1993 (n = 28) also was studied. Patient follow-up ranges from 6 months to 5 years for the SB patients (mean = 2.5 years) and 6 months to 4 years for the PE patients (mean = 1.6 years). Routine follow-up includes documentation of the clinical course and detailed endocrine studies.

findingsPatient and graft actuarial survival at 1 and 3 years is no different for SB and PE patients. Urinary tract infections occurred in 89.3% of the SB patients (2.8/patient) versus 26.3% of the PE patients (0.25/patient, p < or = 0.0001). None of the PE patients experienced hematuria compared with 53.6% of the SB patients (p < or = 0.0001); however, two PE patients had melanotic episodes. The incidence of urinary retention and reflux pancreatitis was 32.1% versus 5.3% (p < or = 0.028) for SB and PE groups, respectively. Patients in the SB group required sodium bicarbonate therapy (mean = 55 mEq/day) although no PE patient required routine therapy; despite this, SB patients experienced more episodes of acidosis (44 vs. 5). Endocrine studies indicate no difference in glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting and stimulated glucose values throughout the follow-up period. In contrast, hyperinsulinemia was evident in both fasting and stimulated tests for the SB patients, with values consistently two- to fivefold higher than those of the PE group.

conclusionsThese results indicate that PE and SB pancreas transplantation are equivalent in terms of patient and graft survival and suggest that the PE approach is associated with a decreased incidence of metabolic and bladder-related complications. In addition, the PE approach eliminates the state of peripheral hyperinsulinemia that characterizes the SB procedure. Continued follow-up will be necessary to determine if long-term outcomes will differ for patients with PE and SB grafts.

Indexed as

Actuarial AnalysisAdultBlood GlucoseDrainageFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansInsulinIntestinesKidney TransplantationMalePancreas TransplantationPortal VeinPostoperative ComplicationsSurvival RateBlood GlucoseInsulin

Identifiers

PMID7794066
PMCPMC1234682
OpenAlexW2019178391

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.