PURPOSE: Traditional Kasai portoenterostomy and porto-appendiceal duodenostomy have been utilized for biliary atresia. Differences in outcome between patients who underwent either Kasai portoenterostomy or porto-appendiceal duodenostomy were compared. METHODS: A review of all children who underwent a drainage procedure for biliary atresia from 1986 to 2000 (n = 30) was performed. Age at drainage procedure, subsequent liver transplantation, and outcomes were evaluated. Outcome variables included success rates (total bilirubin < 2.0 mg/dL) and survival rate. Statistical analysis was done with chi2 and Student's t test. RESULTS: Long-term follow-up was available on 28 of 30 patients. Age at biliary drainage was insignificant. Success rates between porto-appendiceal duodenostomy (31%) and Kasai portoenterostomy (82%) were statistically significant. Survival rate for patients who underwent a Kasai portoenterostomy was 10 of 11 patients. Survival rate for patients who underwent porto-appendiceal duodenostomy was 14 of 16 patients. Overall survival rate was comparable between porto-appendiceal duodenostomy (88%) and Kasai portoenterostomy (91%). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall survival rate was comparable, patients who underwent porto-appendiceal duodenostomy were less successful in alleviating hyperbilirubinemia compared with Kasai portoenterostomy. This is shown further by the greater incidence of subsequent liver transplantation in infants with prior porto-appendiceal duodenostomy. Although the appendix may serve as an alternative biliary conduit, traditional Kasai portoenterostomy appears to achieve better biliary drainage.
PURPOSE: Traditional Kasai portoenterostomy and porto-appendiceal duodenostomy have been utilized for biliary atresia. Differences in outcome between patients who underwent either Kasai portoenterostomy or porto-appendiceal duodenostomy were compared. METHODS: A review of all children who underwent a drainage procedure for biliary atresia from 1986 to 2000 (n = 30) was performed. Age at drainage procedure, subsequent liver transplantation, and outcomes were evaluated. Outcome variables included success rates (total bilirubin < 2.0 mg/dL) and survival rate. Statistical analysis was done with chi2 and Student's t test. RESULTS: Long-term follow-up was available on 28 of 30 patients. Age at biliary drainage was insignificant. Success rates between porto-appendiceal duodenostomy (31%) and Kasai portoenterostomy (82%) were statistically significant. Survival rate for patients who underwent a Kasai portoenterostomy was 10 of 11 patients. Survival rate for patients who underwent porto-appendiceal duodenostomy was 14 of 16 patients. Overall survival rate was comparable between porto-appendiceal duodenostomy (88%) and Kasai portoenterostomy (91%). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall survival rate was comparable, patients who underwent porto-appendiceal duodenostomy were less successful in alleviating hyperbilirubinemia compared with Kasai portoenterostomy. This is shown further by the greater incidence of subsequent liver transplantation in infants with prior porto-appendiceal duodenostomy. Although the appendix may serve as an alternative biliary conduit, traditional Kasai portoenterostomy appears to achieve better biliary drainage.