• enhanced
• kidney
• pancreas
• recovery
• transplantation

The aim of this minireview is to compare various pancreas transplantation exocrine drainage techniques i.e., bladder vs enteric. Both techniques have different difficulties and complications. Numerous comparisons have been made in the literature between exocrine drainage techniques throughout the history of pancreas transplantation, detailing complications and their impact on graft and patient survival. Specific emphasis has been made on the early postoperative management of these complications and the related surgical infections and their consequences. In light of the results, a number of bladder-drained pancreas grafts required conversion to enteric drainage. As a result of technical improvements, outcomes of the varied enteric exocrine drainage techniques (duodenojejunostomy, duodenoduodenostomy or gastric drainage) have also been discussed i.e., assessing specific risks vs benefits. Pancreatic exocrine secretions can be drained to the urinary or intestinal tracts. Until the late 1990s the bladder drainage technique was used in the majority of transplant centers due to ease of monitoring urine amylase and lipase levels for evaluation of possible rejection. Moreover, bladder drainage was associated at that time with fewer surgical complications, which in contrast to enteric drainage, could be managed with conservative therapies. Nowadays, the most commonly used technique for proper driving of exocrine pancreatic secretions is enteric drainage due to the high rate of urological and metabolic complications associated with bladder drainage. Of note, 10% to 40% of bladder-drained pancreata eventually required enteric conversion at no detriment to overall graft survival. Various surgical techniques were originally described using the small bowel for enteric anastomosis with Roux-en-Y loop or a direct side-to-side anastomosis. Despite the improvements in surgery, enteric drainage complication rates ranging from 2%-20% have been reported. Treatment depends on the presence of any associated complications and the condition of the patient. Intra-abdominal infection represents a potentially very serious problem. Up to 30% of deep wound infections are associated with an anastomotic leak. They can lead not only to high rates of graft loss, but also to substantial mortality. New modifications of established techniques are being developed, such as gastric or duodenal exocrine drainage. Duodenoduodenostomy is an interesting option, in which the pancreas is placed behind the right colon and is oriented cephalad. The main concern of this technique is the challenge of repairing the native duodenum when allograft pancreatectomy is necessary. Identification and prevention of technical failure remains the main objective for pancreas transplantation surgeons. In conclusion, despite numerous techniques to minimize exocrine pancreatic drainage complications e.g., leakage and infection, no universal technique has been standardized. A prospective study/registry analysis may resolve this.

• Graft survival
• Patient survival
• Anastomotic leak
• Morbidity
• Infection
• Surgery

• Transplant
• allotransplantation
• heart
• liver, kidney
• lung
• pancreas
• transplantation

Although bladder drainage is effective for monitoring urine amylase levels to detect graft rejection, enteric drainage is performed more frequently. The optimal method for monitoring pancreatic enzyme secretions remains unclear. We investigated graft survival in recipients of bladder drainage and assessed the risk of graft rejection and failure after enteric conversion.

From January 1999 to October 2015, we performed 318 pancreas transplantations at our institution. We enrolled 180 recipients who underwent pancreas transplantation with bladder drainage (82 underwent enteric conversion and the rest did not).

The mean interval between pancreas transplantation and enteric conversion was 20±24 months. The graft survival rate was significantly higher in the enteric conversion group for 10 years after pancreas transplantation than in the maintain bladder drainage group. After enteric conversion, 14 recipients lost graft function. The interval between enteric conversion and graft failure was 43±26 months. In the enteric conversion group, immediate postoperative thromboembolectomy (HR=12.729, p=0.000), renal failure (HR=5.710, p=0.005), pancreas graft rejection after EC (HR=19.006, p=0.000), and delayed graft function (HR=7.021, p=0.001) had a significant relationship with graft failure.

Enteric conversion can be safe and effective for improving short- and long-term graft survival if performed after approximately 9 months. Caution should be exercised with enteric conversion if recipients have a history of thromboembolectomy, delayed graft function, or renal failure.