Single-center retrospective assessment of robotic-assisted simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants: Exploring clinical utility.

The diabetic population is witnessing a rise in obesity rates, creating specific hurdles for individuals seeking pancreas transplantation because they are frequently disqualified due to their elevated body weight. Introducing a robotic-assisted approach to transplantation has been proven to yield improved outcomes, particularly in patients with obesity. A retrospective analysis was conducted between January 2015 and September 2023. The study included a total of 140 patients, with 16 receiving robotic-assisted simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (RSPK) and 124 undergoing open approach simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (OSPK) during the study period. The median age was 45 (36.8-52.7) and 44.5 years (36.8-51.8) (RSPK vs OSPK, P = .487). There were no significant differences in demographics except body mass index (RSPK vs OSPK, 34.9 vs 28.1, P < .001) and a higher percentage of patients with high cardiac risk in the RSPK group. The robotic approach has a lengthier overall operative time and warm ischemia time. Surgical and nonsurgical complications at 30-days and 1-year grafts and patient survival (93.8% vs 96.8%, RSPK vs OSPK, P = .521) were similar. Our findings suggest that employing robotic assistance in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation is safe. Wider adoption and utilization of this technique could potentially improve transplant accessibility for individuals with obesity and diabetes.

Geographic Disparities in Access to Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplant in the Pre- and Post-Pancreas Allocation System Eras.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 pancreas allocation system (PAS) intended to decrease geographic variability in listing practices for simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) transplant and define eligibility criteria for those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our primary aims were to evaluate geographic disparities in access to SPK and assess T2DM SPK listings in the pre- and post-PAS eras. METHODS: Adult listings for SPK and kidney transplant (pre-PAS, January 2010 to October 29, 2014; post-PAS, October 30, 2014, to June 2, 2017) were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Multivariable logistic regression models tested associations of geography and/or diabetes mellitus type on the likelihood of SPK versus kidney transplant listing pre- and post-PAS. Competing risk models tested the likelihood of SPK transplantation within 2 years of listing for SPK. RESULTS: Among 41 205 listings (27 393 pre-PAS; 24 439 T2DM), univariate analysis showed reduced percentages for SPK post-PAS (22.1%-20.8%; P = 0.003). After adjusting for patient and center characteristics, geographic disparities declined slightly but persisted post-PAS (era by region interaction P < 0.001). The era by type of diabetes mellitus interaction effect was statistically significant (P = 0.039), reflecting that the proportions of SPK listings for T2DM increased in the post-PAS era (3.4%-3.9%; univariate P = 0.038), while those for type 1 diabetes mellitus remained statistically stable (47.9%-48.4%; univariate P = 0.571). Among people listed for SPK, geographic disparities in the cumulative incidence of transplantation within 2 years declined and the overall likelihood of transplantation increased in the post-PAS era (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities in access to SPK declined slightly but persisted post-PAS. With new allocation change proposals and elimination of listing criteria for T2DM, further monitoring is warranted.

Noteworthy Literature published in 2017 for Abdominal Organ Transplantation.

In 2017, we identified more than 400 peer reviewed publications on the topic of pancreas transplantation, more than 500 on intestinal transplantation, more than 4000 on renal transplantation, and more than 4700 on liver transplantation. This annual review highlights the most pertinent literature for anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We explore a wide range of topics, including risk for and prediction of perioperative complications, recommendations on perioperative management, economic analyses, and education of the trainees in abdominal transplantation anesthesia and critical care.

Randomized open-label crossover assessment of Prograf vs Advagraf on immunosuppressant pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in simultaneous pancreas-kidney patients.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic impact of converting stable simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) recipients from standard tacrolimus (Prograf) to long-acting tacrolimus (Advagraf). METHODS: In a randomized prospective crossover study, stable SPK recipients on Prograf were assigned to Prograf with 1:1 conversion to Advagraf or vice versa. Demographics, tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid levels, and Cylex CD4 + ATP levels were taken at specified intervals in addition to standard blood work. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients, who were a minimum of 1 year post-transplant, were entered into the study. No difference in tacrolimus or mycophenolic acid levels was noted between patients who were first assigned to Prograf or Advagraf. Additionally, Cylex levels as well as serum creatinine, lipase, and blood sugar levels were unchanged. There were no episodes of rejection during the 6-month study. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to convert between Prograf and Advagraf 1:1, without major impact on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics in SPK recipients.

The Pancreas Can Take the Cold: Lower Waitlist Times Through Importation.

BACKGROUND: Our center has used a strategy of pancreas importation owing to long regional waitlist times. Here we assess the clinical outcomes and financial considerations of this strategy. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients who received a pancreas transplant at Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) from 2014 to 2017 (n = 28). Clinical parameters, including hemoglobin A1c and complications, were analyzed. The cohort was compared with United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Region 9 with the use of the UNOS/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Cost analysis of length of stay (LOS), standard acquisition (SAC) fees, and transportation was performed with the use of internal financial data. RESULTS: Pancreas importation resulted in significantly shorter simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant waitlist times compared with Region 9: 518 days vs 1001 days (P = .038). In addition, postoperative complications and 1-year HbA1c did not differ between groups: local 6.30% vs import 6.17% (P = .87). Patients receiving local pancreata stayed an average of 9.2 days compared with 11 days for the import group (P = .36). As such, pancreas importation was associated with higher mean charges ($445,968) compared with local pancreas recipients ($325,470). CONCLUSIONS: Long waitlist times in Region 9 have encouraged our center's adoption of pancreas importation to address the needs of our patient population. This practice has resulted in a reduction of waitlist times by an average of 483 days. Understandably, centers have long been wary of importation owing to perceived risk in clinical outcomes. In our single-center experience, we have demonstrated equivalent postoperative glucose control and graft survival. Importantly, there does appear to be increased costs associated with importation, which are mainly driven by LOS. Curiously, importation from regions with lower SAC fees has the potential to offset costs related to transportation expenses. Notwithstanding these findings, pancreas importation does have the potential to lessen the financial societal burden through reduction in waitlist times.

Diabetes Mellitus in Living Pancreas Donors: Use of Integrated National Registry and Pharmacy Claims Data to Characterize Donation-Related Health Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatment for diabetic patients with end-organ complications. Although early surgical risks of donation have been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known. METHODS: We integrated national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (1987-2015) with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse (2005-2015) to examine prescriptions for diabetes medications and supplies as a measure of postdonation diabetes mellitus. To compare outcomes in controls with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of donation. RESULTS: Among 73 pancreas donors in the study period, 45 were identified in the pharmacy database: 62% women, 84% white, and 80% relatives of the recipient. Over a mean postdonation follow-up period of 16.3 years, 26.7% of pancreas donors filled prescriptions for diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-8.93; P = 0.0003). Use of insulin (11.1% vs 0%) and oral agents (20.0% vs 5.9%; odds ratio, 4.50, 95% confidence interval, 2.09-9.68; P = 0.0001) was also higher in pancreas donors. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is more common after living pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting clinical consequences from reduced endocrine reserve.

Cardiac Assessment of Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Median 10 Years After Successful Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation Compared With Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In recipients with type 1 diabetes, we aimed to determine whether long-term normoglycemia achieved by successful simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) transplantation could beneficially affect progression of coronary artery disease (CAD) when compared with transplantation of a kidney-alone from a living donor (LDK). METHODS: In 42 kidney transplant recipients with functioning grafts who had received either SPK (n = 25) or LDK (n = 17), we studied angiographic progression of CAD between baseline (pretransplant) and follow-up at 7 years or older. In addition, computed tomography scans for measures of coronary artery calcification and echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular systolic function were addressed at follow-up. RESULTS: During a median follow-up time of 10.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 9.1-11.5) progression of CAD occurred at similar rates (10 of 21 cases in the SPK and 5 of 14 cases in the LDK group; P = 0.49). Median coronary artery calcification scores were high in both groups (1767 [IQR, 321-4035] for SPK and 1045 [IQR, 807-2643] for LDK patients; P = 0.59). Left ventricular systolic function did not differ between the 2 groups. The SPK and LDK recipients were similar in age (41.2 ± 6.9 years vs 40.5 ± 10.3 years; P = 0.80) and diabetes duration at engraftment but with significant different mean HbA1c levels of 5.5 ± 0.4% for SPK and 8.3 ± 1.5% for LDK patients (P < 0.001) during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with both type 1 diabetes and end-stage renal disease, SPK recipients had similar progression of CAD long-term compared with LDK recipients. Calcification of coronary arteries is a prominent feature in both groups long-term posttransplant.

Long-term Outcomes for Living Pancreas Donors in the Modern Era.

BACKGROUND: Living donor segmental pancreas transplants (LDSPTx) have been performed selectively to offer a preemptive transplant option for simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients and to perform a single operation decreasing the cost of pancreas after kidney transplant. For solitary pancreas transplants, this option historically provided a better immunologic match. Although short-term donor outcomes have been documented, there are no long-term studies. METHODS: We studied postdonation outcomes in 46 segmental pancreas living donors. Surgical complications, risk factors (RF) for development of diabetes mellitus (DM) and quality of life were studied. A risk stratification model (RSM) for DM was created using predonation and postdonation RFs. Recipient outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1994 and May 1, 2013, 46 LDSPTx were performed. Intraoperatively, 5 (11%) donors received transfusion. Overall, 9 (20%) donors underwent splenectomy. Postoperative complications included: 6 (13%) peripancreatic fluid collections and 2 (4%) pancreatitis episodes. Postdonation, DM requiring oral hypoglycemics was diagnosed in 7 (15%) donors and insulin-dependent DM in 5 (11%) donors. RSM with three predonation RFs (oral glucose tolerance test, basal insulin, fasting plasma glucose) and 1 postdonation RF, greater than 15% increase in body mass index from preoperative (Δ body mass index >15), predicted 12 (100%) donors that developed postdonation DM. Quality of life was not significantly affected by donation. Mean graft survival was 9.5 (±4.4) years from donors without and 9.6 (±5.4) years from donors with postdonation DM. CONCLUSIONS: LDSPTx can be performed with good recipient outcomes. The donation is associated with donor morbidity including impaired glucose control. Donor morbidity can be minimized by using RSM and predonation counseling on life style modifications postdonation.

Assessment of Immune Isolation of Allogeneic Mouse Pancreatic Progenitor Cells by a Macroencapsulation Device.

BACKGROUND: Embryonic stem cell (ESC)-derived ß cells hold the promise of providing a renewable source of tissue for the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes. Encapsulation may allow ESC-derived ß cells to be transplanted without immunosuppression, thus enabling wider application of this therapy. METHODS: In this study, we investigated the immunogenicity of mouse pancreatic progenitor cells and efficacy of a new macroencapsulation device in protecting these cells against alloimmune and autoimmune responses in mouse models. RESULTS: Mouse pancreatic progenitor cells activated the indirect but not the direct pathway of alloimmune response and were promptly rejected in immune competent hosts. The new macroencapsulation device abolished T cell activation induced by allogeneic splenocytes and protected allogeneic MIN6 ß cells and pancreatic progenitors from rejection even in presensitized recipients. In addition, the device was effective in protecting MIN6 cells in spontaneously diabetic nonobese diabetic recipients against both alloimmune and recurring autoimmune responses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that macroencapsulation can effectively prevent immune sensing and rejection of allogeneic pancreatic progenitor cells in fully sensitized and autoimmune hosts.

Energy expenditure and growth failure after intestinal transplantation: A case report.

We present a 12-yr-old boy who received a combined liver-pancreas small bowel transplantation at the age of two. The post-operative period was complicated by wound closure problems resulting in a large asymptomatic abdominal wall defect. Further follow-up was uneventful, with the exception of new onset growth failure not explained by extensive routine investigations. An indirect calorimetry was performed. The resting energy expenditure (REE) was significantly increased (126% of predicted), demanding a daily caloric intake of 123 kcal/kg body weight (normal for age: 80 kcal/kg). In the absence of classic reasons for increased REE, a thermal camera revealed increased dermal heat loss at the abdominal wall defect (estimated surplus in energy loss of at least 29 kcal/day: 10.4% of the elevated REE). In addition, we found lower total lung capacity due to impaired abdominal breathing. In the exploration of growth failure in children after (ITx), increased REE must be taken into account. Indirect calorimetry can serve as a valuable diagnostic tool for evaluating individual energy requirements and nutritional support. In this child, exaggerated heat loss through an aberrant abdominal wall could be a potential important contributor to the patient's increased energy requirements.

Histopathological Examination may be Useful for Assessment of Fibrosis and Lipomatosis of Pancreas Allograft Prior to Solid Organ Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The results of pancreas transplantation depend in a large degree on appropriate pancreas allograft donor selection. Several risk factors of early surgical complications or pancreas allograft loss following transplantation have been identified, but the final decision on pancreas harvesting for transplantation belongs to the surgeon. In the present study we aimed to assess whether histopathological examination may be utilized for detection of fibrosis and lipomatosis in tissue from a potential pancreas allograft. Additionally, we aimed to test whether presence of pancreatic fibrosis and lipomatosis may be explained solely by donor age and/or body mass index (BMI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pancreata retrieved from 50 deceased organ donors referred to our institution and not transplanted between 2010 and 2013 were used for the present study. Tissue samples were excised from pancreata, fixed in formalin, and embedded in paraffin. Presence and intensity of pancreatic fibrosis and lipomatosis were assessed semi-quantitatively. RESULTS: Fibrosis was found in the majority of study samples (72%), but it was usually mild or moderate. Lipomatosis was present in 34% of the study cases. Presence of fibrosis was more frequent in older donors, but was still not rare in donors under 40 years old. Presence of lipomatosis did not seem to be significantly related to donor age. Neither pancreatic fibrosis nor lipomatosis was related to donor BMI. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear relationship between histological parenchymal changes in potential pancreas allograft and donor age and BMI. Histopathological assessment of pancreatic fibrosis and/or lipomatosis can potentially facilitate decision making on pancreas allograft acceptance for solid organ transplantation.

Expanding the indications of pancreas transplantation alone.

OBJECTIVES: Total pancreatectomy (TP) is associated with postoperative endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. Especially, insulin therapy reduces quality of life and may lead to long-term complications. We review the literature with regard to the potential option of pancreas transplantation alone (PTA) after TP in patients with chronic pancreatitis or benign tumors. METHODS: A MEDLINE search (1958-2013) using the terminologies pancreas transplantation, pancreas transplantation alone, total pancreatectomy, morbidity, mortality, insulin therapy, and quality of life was performed. In addition, the current book and congress publications were reviewed. RESULTS: Total pancreatectomy after benign and borderline tumors as well as chronic pancreatitis is continuously increasing. Despite improvement of exogenous insulin therapy, more than 50% of these patients experience severe glucose control problems, which cause up to 50% long-term mortality. Pancreas transplantation alone can cure both endocrine and exocrine insufficiency and reduce the associated risks. The 3-year graft and patient survival rates after PTA are up to 73% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreas transplantation alone after TP in patients with pancreatitis or benign tumors improves the recipient's quality of life and reduces long-term mortality. Considering the amount of available organs and potential candidates, PTA can be a treatment option for patients after TP with chronic pancreatitis or benign tumors.

Has the gap between pancreas and islet transplantation closed?

Both pancreas and islet transplantations are therapeutic options for complicated type 1 diabetes. Until recent years, outcomes of islet transplantation have been significantly inferior to those of whole pancreas. Islet transplantation is primarily performed alone in patients with severe hypoglycemia, and recent registry reports have suggested that results of islet transplantation alone in this indication may be about to match those of pancreas transplant alone in insulin independence. Figures of 50% insulin independence at 5 years for either procedure have been cited. In this article, we address the question whether islet transplantation has indeed bridged the gap with whole pancreas. Looking at the evidence to answer this question, we propose that although pancreas may still be more efficient in taking recipients off insulin than islets, there are in fact numerous "gaps" separating both procedures that must be taken into the equation. These "gaps" relate to organ utilization, organ allocation, indication for transplantation, and morbidity. In-depth analysis reveals that islet transplantation, in fact, has an edge on whole pancreas in some of these aspects. Accordingly, attempts should be made to bridge these gaps from both sides to achieve the same level of success with either procedure. More realistically, it is likely that some of these gaps will remain and that both procedures will coexist and complement each other, to ensure that ß cell replacement can be successfully implemented in the greatest possible number of patients with type 1 diabetes.

Pancreatic islet transplantation in type 1 diabetes mellitus: an update on recent developments.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus is an autoimmune disease that is characterized by the destruction of the islets of Langerhans cells which produce insulin. The current gold standard treatment is exogenous insulin injection, but this is onerous for the patients, and can lead to severe complications. Another approach involves transplanting pancreatic islet cells in order to restore endogenous insulin production under physiologic regulation. Although there has been some success with this treatment plan, there have been several hurdles. The largest hurdle is improving the 5 year survival of the graft, which is currently at 10%. In order to do so, there has been research into better locations for the graft, better isolation techniques, alternate immune suppression regimens, and novel transplantation methodologies utilizing encapsulated grafts. Another hurdle for pancreatic islet transplantation is that current methodologies require islets from several pancreata in order to create one successful graft, which leads to difficulties since there is a limited supply. However, there has been research looking into single donor transplants and porcine xenografts to increase the supply and address this problem. In this article, we review the current state of research regarding pancreatic islet transplantation.

Advances in machine perfusion graft viability assessment in kidney, liver, pancreas, lung, and heart transplant.

Solid organ transplant constitutes the definitive treatment for end-stage organ failure. Better organ preservation methods have enabled use of marginal grafts, thereby expanding the donor pool to meet the growing demand for organs. Static cold storage as a preservation method has been superseded largely by machine perfusion in kidney transplant, with work regarding its use in other organ transplants ongoing. We hope that machine perfusion will allow better graft preservation, and pretransplant assessment, and optimization. The most extensive laboratory, preclinical, and clinical research into machine perfusion organ preservation has focused on kidneys. Successful outcomes in its use in renal transplant have sparked interest for its development and application to the liver, pancreas, heart, and lungs. This article reviews the current state of machine perfusion in abdominal and thoracic organ transplant, focusing on the recent developments in assessing graft viability.

[End-stage nephropathy in type 1-diabetes mellitus - kidney transplantation alone or combined with islet or pancreas transplantation?]. / Der nierenkranke Patient mit Typ 1-Diabetes mellitus - Nierentransplantation allein oder mit Insel- oder Pankreastransplantation?

Due to the recent changes in reimbursement politics in islet and pancreas transplantation in Switzerland, the question, which patients with type 1-diabetes mellitus get which form of beta-cell replacement, is of utmost importance for referring physicians. As of July 1, 2010 all forms of islet- or pancreas-transplantations are reimbursed by the Swiss health care system. The limited availability of donor organs and the necessity of transplantation of the islets of several pancreata in order to achieve insulin independence has led to a change in paradigms in Switzerland, where insulin independence by multiple islet transplantations is not the key goal in islet transplantation any longer. The primary goal is achieving a good blood glucose control and avoidance of severe hypoglycaemic episodes. This goal can be achieved in 80 - 90 % of all patients. Only if this goal cannot be achieved by a single islet transplantation, a second or third islet transplantation is performed. By adapting this strategy more patients can benefit from this new therapy. Unlike the North American centers, the Swiss centers in Zurich and Geneva concentrated their efforts on islet after kidney and simultaneous islet kidney transplantation. Due to the organ donor shortage in Switzerland, 50 % of kidney transplants are nowadays living-organ donations, therefore this option has to be included in the decision tree of a beta cell replacement. The choice between islet and pancreas transplantation depends on the existence of diabetes complications (because the perioperative risk is considerably higher in pancreas transplantation) and the potential benefit of a pancreas- or islet transplantation. The first question in the decision tree is, therefore, whether the patient with type 1-diabetes and severe renal failure is a potential candidate for simultaneous pancreas-islet transplantation. If the perioperative risk is considered to be too high, or if revascularisation procedures cannot be done before transplantation, the patient qualifies only for islet transplantation. If a living organ donation for the kidney is possible and the patient not yet on dialysis then the patient can be listed for simultaneous islet-kidney or pancreas-kidney-transplantation. If dialysis is imminent or already performed, a living-donor kidney should be transplanted with the option of a later islet- or pancreas after kidney transplantation. If the patient with type 1-diabetes mellitus is able to maintain a reasonable glycemic level, he would be a good candidate for islet transplantation. If the patient is willing to take the additional risk of complications associated with a pancreas transplant, was never able to maintain a good glycated haemoglobin, has an acceptable perioperative risk, and wishes to become insulin-independent, a simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant would be recommended. If the kidney has already been transplanted previously, a pancreas- after kidney transplantation would be the procedure of choice. An islet or pancreas transplantation alone is reserved for the patient with type 1-diabetes with a good renal function and frequent life-threatening hypoglycemias, which have to be balanced against the risks of a life-long immunosuppression. In this review article the advantages, disadvantages, and current indications for both beta-cell replacement options in Switzerland are discussed in the light of the available evidence with the help of a new flow chart.

Assessment of viability of the pancreas for transplantation using contrast-enhanced ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION: The main concern in pancreas transplantation is potential thrombosis of the graft due to poor perfusion. AIM: To assess the viability of the pancreas before transplantation by using contrast-enhanced ultrasound scan (CEUS). METHODS: Ten harvested pancreatas were studied using an iU22 (Philips, Bothell, USA) scanner together with an L9-3 linear probe for the CEUS. The ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue (Bracco spa, Milan), which is a commercially available second-generation microbubble-based agent, can be visualized in real time at low acoustic pressure (mechanical Index of 0.06). Prior to transplantation, the pancreas is placed in Via Span solution (Bristol-Mayer Squibb AB, Bromma, Sverige). Baseline conventional scale sonography is first performed to assess the parenchyma, which appears as homogenous soft tissue. The donor pancreas arterial supply is cannulated (16 gauge) and infused with Via Span solution. Two milliliters of SonoVue is slowly injected and the pancreas is scanned using the low MI nonlinear imaging mode to visualize the microbubbles enhancement of the pancreas to ensure uniform perfusion of the whole organ. Perfusion was scored visually (0 to 5) subjectively by two observers. RESULTS: Four grafts were not transplanted for different reasons. Lack of a recipient was the cause in one case with a high score (case 1). Cases 4 and 5 were turned down based on clinical evaluation, and arterial thrombosis was the cause in case 7. The last three cases showed a low mean perfusion score of 1.2. Of the six transplanted pancreatas, the four, that were successfully transplanted displayed a mean perfusion score of 4, compared with a mean score of 1.5 for the two cases who suffered rejection following transplantation. CONCLUSION: CEUS offers the potential to assess the perfusion of the pancreas transplant preoperatively, which may improve the selection criteria and potentially impact the outcomes of transplantation.

Laparoscopic-assisted distal pancreatectomy and nephrectomy from a live donor.

BACKGROUND: The simultaneous transplantation of pancreas and kidney from live donors is performed in select countries. One of the reasons for this reduced applicability is the invasiveness of the donor operation. We propose the method of laparoscopic-assisted operation to be performed on live donors with minimal invasion. METHOD: The donor was placed in the right lateral decubitus position. A 7-cm upper midline incision was made, and a handport was installed in addition to two or three 12-mm ports. After the removal of the left kidney graft, the spleen and the distal part of the pancreas were completely mobilized. The splenic vein and artery were identified and mobilized. The donor was then rotated to a supine position. Dissection of the pancreatic parenchyma using ultrasound shears and ligation of the splenic vessels were performed through midline incision under direct vision. The distal part of the pancreas and the spleen were extracted. RESULTS: Since December 2007, 3 donors have undergone this operation. In all 3 cases, the postoperative course was uneventful, and both the renal and pancreatic grafts functioned well. CONCLUSION: This technique is minimally invasive and safe, and may become the standard method of live donor operation for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

Prospective quality-of-life monitoring of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant recipients using the 36-item short form health survey.

BACKGROUND: Few risk factors for quality-of-life outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant recipients are known because of a paucity of data from prospective studies. STUDY DESIGN: Pretransplant assessment and prospective 3-year follow-up. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive potential recipients at a university teaching hospital assessed by Liaison Psychiatry. PREDICTORS: Demographic data; pretransplant Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale scores; current, past 12 months, and prior lifetime psychiatric disorder. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores. RESULTS: 37 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant recipients were assessed pretransplant and at 4 months posttransplant. Posttransplant at 1 year, 29 (81% of survivors); at 2 years, 26 (79% of survivors and those reaching 2 years); and at 3 years, 22 (92% of survivors and those reaching 3 years) patients were assessed. SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores (mean pretransplant, 46.8 +/- 8.2 [SD]; 4 months, 51.7 +/- 8.5; 1 year, 50.1 +/- 9.7; 2 years, 51.8 +/- 8.9; and 3 years, 50.8 +/- 13.8) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores (pretransplant, 40.6 +/- 10.6; 4 months, 43.6 +/- 12.0; 1 year, 45.6 +/- 11.3; 2 years, 48.1 +/- 10.2; and 3 years, 46.8 +/- 9.1) showed sustained improvement posttransplant. MCS scores became similar to population norms. Functionally significant decreases in MCS and PCS scores were seen in 4%-21% and 8%-30% at times posttransplant. Male sex predicted higher scores at 4 months for the MCS (P = 0.003; regression coefficient, -8.28 [95% CI, -13.6 to -2.9]; effect size, 0.22) and PCS (P = 0.05; regression coefficient, -6.91 [95% CI, -13.9 to 0.9]; effect size, 0.08). Current psychiatric disorder at pretransplant evaluation predicted higher PCS scores at 4 months (P = 0.002; regression coefficient, -15.42 [95% CI, -24.6 to -6.2]; effect size, 0.22) and 1 year (P = 0.002; regression coefficient, -17.3 [95% CI, -27.9 to -6.7]; effect size, 0.29). Psychiatric disorder before the 12 months before the pretransplant evaluation predicted lower PCS scores at 4 months posttransplant (P < 0.001; regression coefficient, 14.98 [95% CI, 7.1-22.8]; effect size, 0.29). LIMITATIONS: Cohort size. CONCLUSIONS: Although half experienced sustained quality-of-life improvement, up to one-third experienced a decrease. Past psychiatric disorder is a risk factor. Patients should be educated and monitored appropriately.