Usefulness of T-Tube in Liver Transplantation: Still Effective or Outmoded Strategy?

Q4 Medicine
Niccolò Incarbone, R. De Carlis, L. Centonze, L. Palmieri, G. Cordaro, Alberto Ficarelli, I. Vella, V. Buscemi, A. Lauterio, L. D. De Carlis
{"title":"Usefulness of T-Tube in Liver Transplantation: Still Effective or Outmoded Strategy?","authors":"Niccolò Incarbone, R. De Carlis, L. Centonze, L. Palmieri, G. Cordaro, Alberto Ficarelli, I. Vella, V. Buscemi, A. Lauterio, L. D. De Carlis","doi":"10.3390/transplantology2040036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: T-tube placement during liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. We performed a retrospective study to evaluate the usefulness of T-tube after LT in two cohorts differing in post-transplant risk. Methods: A total of 327 LTs performed between 2015 and 2018 were included in the analysis. LTs from donation after circulatory death and living donation, split-liver transplants, and LTs with hepaticojejunostomy were excluded. T-tube was reserved for marginal grafts, high-risk recipients, and bile duct size discrepancy. A balance of risk (BAR) score of ≤9 defined the low-risk cohort (232 patients, 68 with and 164 without T-tube), while a BAR score of >9 defined the high-risk cohort (95 patients, 43 with and 52 without T-tube). Postoperative complications were estimated with the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Postoperative biliary complications were classified in anastomotic stricture (AS), non-anastomotic stricture (NAS), and biliary leakage (BL). Results: In the low-risk cohort, LTs with and without T-tube had similar rates of NAS (0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.36), AS (2.9 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.83), and BL (1.4 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.64). Analogous outcomes were found in the high-risk cohort: NAS (0 vs. 0), AS (0 vs. 5.7%, p = 0.11), and BL (0 vs. 1.3%, p = 0.27). There were more postoperative complications among patients with T-tube, in both the low-risk (CCI 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001) and high-risk (CCI 51 vs. 29, p < 0.001) cohort. No differences in primary non-function, hepatic artery thrombosis, and mortality were observed. Conclusions: T-tube placement did not influence postoperative biliary complications. Although the two cohorts were normalized for post-transplant risk, LT recipients with T-tube had a more complicated course.","PeriodicalId":36461,"journal":{"name":"Cell and Organ Transplantology","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cell and Organ Transplantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology2040036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: T-tube placement during liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. We performed a retrospective study to evaluate the usefulness of T-tube after LT in two cohorts differing in post-transplant risk. Methods: A total of 327 LTs performed between 2015 and 2018 were included in the analysis. LTs from donation after circulatory death and living donation, split-liver transplants, and LTs with hepaticojejunostomy were excluded. T-tube was reserved for marginal grafts, high-risk recipients, and bile duct size discrepancy. A balance of risk (BAR) score of ≤9 defined the low-risk cohort (232 patients, 68 with and 164 without T-tube), while a BAR score of >9 defined the high-risk cohort (95 patients, 43 with and 52 without T-tube). Postoperative complications were estimated with the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Postoperative biliary complications were classified in anastomotic stricture (AS), non-anastomotic stricture (NAS), and biliary leakage (BL). Results: In the low-risk cohort, LTs with and without T-tube had similar rates of NAS (0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.36), AS (2.9 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.83), and BL (1.4 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.64). Analogous outcomes were found in the high-risk cohort: NAS (0 vs. 0), AS (0 vs. 5.7%, p = 0.11), and BL (0 vs. 1.3%, p = 0.27). There were more postoperative complications among patients with T-tube, in both the low-risk (CCI 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001) and high-risk (CCI 51 vs. 29, p < 0.001) cohort. No differences in primary non-function, hepatic artery thrombosis, and mortality were observed. Conclusions: T-tube placement did not influence postoperative biliary complications. Although the two cohorts were normalized for post-transplant risk, LT recipients with T-tube had a more complicated course.
t管在肝移植中的作用:仍然有效还是过时的策略?
肝移植(LT)中t管的放置仍有争议。我们进行了一项回顾性研究,以评估t管在移植后风险不同的两个队列中的有效性。方法:2015年至2018年共327例LTs纳入分析。排除循环死亡和活体捐献后的肝移植、肝分裂移植和肝空肠吻合术后的肝移植。t管用于边缘移植物、高危受体和胆管大小差异。风险平衡(BAR)评分≤9定义为低风险队列(232例,有t管68例,无t管164例),而BAR评分>9定义为高风险队列(95例,有t管43例,无t管52例)。采用综合并发症指数(CCI)评估术后并发症。术后胆道并发症分为吻合口狭窄(AS)、非吻合口狭窄(NAS)和胆道漏(BL)。结果:在低危队列中,有和没有t管的lt发生NAS (0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.36)、AS (2.9 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.83)和BL (1.4 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.64)的比例相似。在高危人群中也发现了类似的结果:NAS(0比0)、AS(0比5.7%,p = 0.11)和BL(0比1.3%,p = 0.27)。在低危组(CCI 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001)和高危组(CCI 51 vs. 29, p < 0.001)中,t管患者的术后并发症更多。在原发性无功能、肝动脉血栓和死亡率方面没有观察到差异。结论:t管置入对术后胆道并发症无影响。尽管两个队列的移植后风险归一化,但t管移植的肝移植患者的病程更为复杂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cell and Organ Transplantology
Cell and Organ Transplantology Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信