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