Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2016 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5

Pediatric small bowel transplantation: A single-center experience from Turkey

Pages
428–432
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Although the number of SBTxs performed was small, this study shows promising results

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: Small bowel transplantation (SBTx) is a treatment option for patients with serious parenteral nutrition-related problems in intestinal failure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seven isolated SBTxs were performed in six children between 2010 and 2016.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although the number of SBTxs performed was small, this study shows promising results
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: Small bowel transplantation (SBTx) is a treatment option for patients with serious parenteral nutrition-related problems in intestinal failure. İzmir Tepecik Training Research Hospital Organ Transplantation Center is still the only pediatric intestinal transplant center in Turkey. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients’ data were analyzed from the medical charts and the hospital digital database. Seven isolated SBTxs were performed in six children between 2010 and 2016. Results: One jejunal segment and six partial jejuno-ileal segments were used for seven transplants. All grafts were retrieved from deceased donors (one child and six adult donors). The six recipients had a mean age of 8.8±6.9 years (9 months to 17 years; M: 4, F: 2). The mean follow-up period of patients was 727±848 (34 to 1950) days. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) rates were 57% (n: 4) in the first 2 months. Graft loss due to severe ACR was seen in one patient. Central line-associated fungal (n: 3, 42%) and bacterial infections (n: 3, 42%) were seen in the first 2 months. Two Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections were recorded between 3 and 8 months in two patients. Our 1-year patient and graft survival rates were 71% and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: SBTx has become a treatment modality for patients with intestinal failures. Management of ACR and infections are still challenging problems in SBTx. Appropriate-sized cadaveric donors are very limited in Turkey for pediatric intestinal transplantation candidates. Although the number of SBTxs performed was small, this study shows promising results

🔖

Cite This Article

TUĞMEN, C., BARAN, M., SERT, İ., ANIL, A. B., KEBAPÇI, E., DOĞAN, S. M., KILINÇ, S., AYDIN, G., DİNİZ, A. G., ÖLMEZ, M., PİRİM, İ., KARACA, C. (2016). Pediatric small bowel transplantation: A single-center experience from Turkey. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 5, 428–432. https://ajindex.com/articles/404215

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Deltz E, Schroeder P, Gebhardt H, et al. Successful clinical small bowel transplantation: report of a case. Clin Transpl 1989; 3: 89-91
  2. Goulet O, Revillon Y, Jan D, et al. Small-bowel transplantation in children. Transplant Proc 1990; 22: 2499-500
  3. Starzl TE, Todo S, Tzakis A, et al. The many faces of multivisceral transplantation [review]. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 172: 335-44. [Er-ratum in Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 173: 242
  4. Nayyar N, Mazariegos G, Ranganathan S, et al. Pediatric small bowel transplantation. Semin Pediatr Surg 2010; 19: 68-77. [CrossRef ] 5 Doğan SM, Kılınç S, Kebapçı E, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy in patients with small bowel transplantation: Single center experience. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 8215-20. [CrossRef ] 6. Mazariegos GV, Squires RH, Sindhi RK. Current Persipectives on Pediatric Small Bowel Transplantation. Current Gastroenterology Reports 2009: 11: 226-33. [CrossRef ] 7. Van Gossum A, Vahedi K, Abdel Malik, et al. Espen-Han Workıng Group. Clinical social and rehabilitation status of long term home parenteral nutrition patients: Results of a European multicentere survey. Clin Nutr, 2001; 20: 205-10. [CrossRef ] 8. Abu-Elmagd KM, Costa G, Bond GJ, et al. Evolution of the immunosuppressive strategies for the intestinal and multivisceral recipients with special reference to allograft immunity and achievement of partial tolerance. Transpl Int 2009; 22: 96-109. [CrossRef ] 9. Ishii T, Mazariegos GV, Bueno J, Ohwada S, Reyes J. Exfoliative rejection after intestinal transplantation in children. Pediatr Transplant 2003; 7: 185-91. [CrossRef ] 10. Avıtzor Y, Grant D. Intestine Transplantation in Children: Update 2010. Pediatr Clin North Am 2010; 57: 415-31. [CrossRef ] 11. Moon J, Iyer K. Intestinal rehabilitation and transplantation for intestinal failure. Mt Sinai J Med 2012; 79: 256-66. [CrossRef ] 12. Dopazo C, Gupte GL, Sharif K, et al. Combined Liver-Intestine Grafts Compared With Isolated Intestinal Transplantation in Children: A Single-Center Experience. Transplantation 2012; 94: 859- 65. [CrossRef ] 13. Kim N, Im K, Lim Jy, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment and prevention of graft-versus-host disease: experiments and practice. Ann Hematol 2013; 92: 1295-308. [CrossRef ] 14. Reinders ME, Rabelink TJ, De Fijter JW. The role of mesenchymal stromal cells in chronic transplant rejection after solid organ transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2013; 18: 44-50. [CrossRef ] 15. Tan J, Wu