Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11175980

Post-transplant biliary problems.

Abstract

Biliary problems after a liver transplantation constitute the most frequent source of morbidity. Early recognition and nonoperative therapy have impacted short-term survival. Endoscopic therapy is the cornerstone in the initial treatment of all post-transplant biliary complications. A multidisciplinary approach involving endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical therapies are often complementary in the management of these complex patients.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J W Ostroff. 2001. Post-transplant biliary problems.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11175980/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Congenital biliary dilatation in dizygotic twins.

Congenital biliary dilatation (CBD) of different types was recently noted in dizygotic twins. Our cases suggest the possibility of hereditary involvement in CBD. On the other hand, CBD discordance in six sets of monozygotic twins has been reported, which would suggest that the occurrence of CBD is not compatible with single gene control, although environmental factors are plausible. To evaluate the genetic factors that may be implicated in CBD, it would be necessary to accumulate more familial cases and examine further studies on inheritance.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗

A double stapled technique for oesophago-enteric anastomosis.

AIM: Leakage from oesophageal anastomosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. This study presented a novel, safe and effective double stapled technique for oesophago-enteric anastomosis. METHODS: The data were obtained prospectively from hospital held clinical database. Thirty nine patients (26 males, 13 females) underwent upper-gastrointestinal resection between 1996 and 2000 for carcinoma (n = 36), gastric lymphoma (n = 1), and benign pathology (n = 2). Double stapled oesophago-enteric anastomosis was performed in all cases. RESULTS: No anastomotic leak was reported. In cases of malignancy, the resected margins were free of neoplasm. Three deaths occurred, which were not related to anastomotic complications. CONCLUSION: Even though the reported study is an uncontrolled one, the technique described is reliable, and effective for oesophago-enteric anastomosis.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗

Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is little agreement on prophylactic use of drains in anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery despite many randomized clinical trials. Results of these trials are contradictory, quality and statistical power of these individual studies have been questioned. Once anastomotic leakage has occurred it is generally agreed that drains should be used for therapeutic purposes. However, on prophylactic use no such agreement exists. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and non-drainage regimes after colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: The use of prophylactic anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery does not prevent development of complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: The studies were identified from CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Controlled Clinical Trials Database, Trials Register of the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing drainage with non-drainage regimes after anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery were reviewed. Outcome measures were: 1. mortality; 2. clinical anastomotic dehiscence; 3. radiological anastomotic dehiscence; 4. wound infection; 5. reoperation; 6. extra-abdominal complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted and cross-checked by the two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The RCTs were stratified based on experimental group, according to clinical homogeneity (external validity). MAIN RESULTS: Of the 1140 patients enrolled (6 RCTs), 573 were allocated for drainage and 567 for no drainage. The patients assigned to the drainage group compared with the ones assigned to non-drainage group showed: a) Mortality: 3% (18 of 573 patients) compared with 4% (25 of 567 patients); b) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence: 2% (11 of 522 patients) compared with 1% (7 of 519 patients); c) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence: 3% (16 of 522 patients) compared with 4% (19 of 519 patients); d) Wound infection: 5% (29 of 573 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 567 patients); e) Reintervention: 6% (34 of 542 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 539 patients); f) Extra abdominal complications: 7% (34 of 522 patients) compared with 6% (32 of 519 patients). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗