Simultaneous Serial Transverse Enteroplasty (STEP) in Size Mismatch Small Bowel Transplantations
- 112 Downloads
Small bowel transplantation (SBTX) in children receiving larger grafts from adults can be challenging because of size mismatch. The aim of the present study was to assess whether a simultaneous serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP) can address the problem of size mismatch.
Three different size ratio groups between donors and recipients were compared in a porcine model with a 14-day follow-up. The groups were size matched, size mismatched (1:3.8 weight ratio), and size mismatched + STEP (each n = 8).
It was technically feasible to simultaneously perform a STEP and SBTX of a mismatched intestinal segment. The postoperative clinical course was uneventful. No signs of bleeding, leakage, stenosis, or ileus were observed and the intestinal segment was well perfused at relaparotomy. Body weight decreased in all groups, but the percentage decrease was lowest in the mismatched + STEP group. Vital enterocyte masses were similar in all the groups (citrulline levels) and the nutritional status was best in the STEP group (transferrin levels, p = 0.04).
We have demonstrated that a simultaneous STEP and SBTX procedure is technically feasible and clinically useful in overcoming the challenges associated with size mismatched SBTX. Our short-term findings justify further investigation in a larger series to elucidate the long-term outcomes of this procedure.
KeywordsIntestinal transplantation STEP Living donor Size mismatch Children
Study conception and design: Frongia G; Mehrabi A.
Data collection: Frongia G; Majlesara A; Saffari A; Abbasi Dezfouli S; Gharabaghi N; Okun JG; Thiel C.
Analysis and data interpretation: Frongia G.
Drafting of the manuscript: Frongia G.
Critical revision: Günther P; Vianna R; Mehrabi A.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was performed in accordance with the National Research Council’s principles for the care and use of laboratory animals. The Animal Ethics Review Committee of the Regional Commission (Karlsruhe, Germany) approved the study protocol. This study was performed in accordance with the National Research Council’s guidelines and the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments. Animals received humane care in compliance with institutional guidelines.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. No funding was received.
- 1.Merritt RJ, Cohran V, Raphael BP, et al. Intestinal rehabilitation programs in the management of pediatric intestinal failure and short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017;65(5):588–596.Google Scholar
- 2.Vianna R, Kubal C, Mangus R, Fridell J, et al. Intestinal and multivisceral transplantation at Indiana University: 6 years’ experience with 100 cases. Clin Transpl. 2009;219–228.Google Scholar
- 3.Grant D, Abu-Elmagd K, Mazariegos G, et al. Intestinal transplant registry report: Global activity and trends. Am J Transplant. 2015;15:210–219.Google Scholar
- 4.Mangus RS, Subbarao GC. Intestinal transplantation in infants with intestinal failure. Clin Perinat. 2013;40:161–173.Google Scholar
- 5.Gotthardt DN, Gauss A, Zech U, et al. Indications for intestinal transplantation: recognizing the scope and limits of total parenteral nutrition. Clin Transplant. 2013;27:49–55.Google Scholar
- 6.Vianna RM, Mangus RS. Present prospects and future perspectives of intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2009.12(3):281–286.Google Scholar
- 7.Bhamidimarri KR, Beduschi T, Vianna R. Multivisceral Transplantation. Where Do We Stand? Clinics in Liver Disease. 2014. 18(3):661–674.Google Scholar
- 8.Vianna R. Immunologic basis of allograft rejection and immunosuppressive agents in intestinal transplantation. Minerva Pediatr. 2009;61(3):293–303.Google Scholar
- 9.Nickkholgh A, Contin P, Abu-Elmagd K, et al. Intestinal transplantation: Review of operative techniques. Clin Transplant. 2013;27(25):56–65.Google Scholar
- 10.Mangus R, Vianna R, Tector A. Intestinal transplantation: an overview. Minerva Chir. 2009;64(1):45–57.Google Scholar
- 11.Vianna RM, Mangus RS, Tector AJ. Current status of small bowel and multivisceral transplantation. Adv Surg. 2008;42:129–50.Google Scholar
- 12.Sudan D, Horslen S, Botha J, et al. Quality of Life after Pediatric Intestinal Transplantation: The Perception of Pediatric Recipients and Their Parents. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(3):407–413.Google Scholar
- 13.Sudan D. Cost and quality of life after intestinal transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(2):158–162.Google Scholar
- 14.Lacaille F, Vass N, Sauvat F, et al. Long-term outcome, growth and digestive function in children 2 to 18 years after intestinal transplantation. Gut. 2008;57:455–461.Google Scholar
- 15.Ngo KD, Farmer DG, McDiarmid SV, et al. Pediatric health-related quality of life after intestinal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant. 2011;15(8):849–854.Google Scholar
- 16.Abu-Elmagd KM, Kosmach-Park B, Costa G, et al. Long-Term Survival, Nutritional Autonomy, and Quality of Life After Intestinal and Multivisceral Transplantation. Ann Surg. 2012;256(3):494–508.Google Scholar
- 17.Cicalese L, Rastellini C, Sileri P, et al. Segmental living related small bowel transplantation in adults. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5(2):168–172.Google Scholar
- 18.Holterman MJ, Holterman AL, Carrol R, John E, et al. Living-Related Bowel Transplantation to Treat Short Bowel Syndrome in a Four-Year-Old Child: A Case Report. J Ped Surg. 2003;38(12);1763–1765.Google Scholar
- 19.Benedetti E, Holterman M, Asolati M, et al. Living related segmental bowel transplantation: from experimental to standardized procedure. Ann Surg; 2006;244(5):694–699.Google Scholar
- 20.Tzvetanov IG, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E. Current status of living donor small bowel transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2010;15(3):346–348.Google Scholar
- 21.Kim HB, Fauza D, Garza J, et al. Serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP): A novel bowel lengthening procedure. J Ped Surg. 2003;38(3):425–429.Google Scholar
- 22.Frongia G, Kessler M, Weih S, et al. Comparison of LILT and STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome — A systematic review of the literature. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(8):1794–1805.Google Scholar
- 23.Weih S, Nickkholgh A, Kessler M, et al. Models of Short Bowel Syndrome in Pigs: A Technical Review. Eur Surg Res 2013;51(1–2):66–78.Google Scholar
- 24.Weih S, Kessler M, Fonouni H, et al. Current practice and future perspectives in the treatment of short bowel syndrome in children - A systematic review. Lang Arch Surg. 2012. 397(7):1043–1051.Google Scholar
- 25.Weih S, Kessler M, Fonouni H, et al. Review of various techniques of small bowel transplantation in pigs. J Surg Res. 2011;171(2):709–18.Google Scholar
- 26.Mehrabi V, Mehrabi A, Jamshidi SH, et al. Modified Spiral Intestinal Lengthening and Tailoring for Short Bowel Syndrome. Surg Innov 2015;23(1):30–35.Google Scholar
- 27.Frongia G, Nickkholgh A, Hafezi M, et al. Significance of the Extent of Intestinal Resection on the Outcome of a Short-bowel Syndrome in a Porcine Model. J Investig Surg. 2016; 29(1):57–65.Google Scholar
- 28.Ong C, Han WM, Wong JJM, et al. Nutrition biomarkers and clinical outcomes in critically ill children: A critical appraisal of the literature. Clinical Nutrition. 2014; 33(2):191–197.Google Scholar
- 29.Papadia C, Sherwood RA, Kalantzis C, et al. Plasma citrulline concentration: A reliable marker of small bowel absorptive capacity independent of intestinal inflammation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(7):1474–1482.Google Scholar
- 30.Ching YA, Fitzgibbons S, Valim C, et al. Long-term nutritional and clinical outcomes after serial transverse enteroplasty at a single institution. J Pediatr Surg 2009;44:939–43.Google Scholar
- 31.Miyasaka EA, Brown PI, Teitelbaum DH. Redilation of bowel after intestinal lengthening procedures–an indicator for poor outcome. J Pediatr Surg 2011;46:145–9.Google Scholar
- 32.Andres AM, Thompson J, Grant W, et al. Repeat surgical bowel lengthening with the STEP procedure. Transplantation 2008;85: 1294–9.Google Scholar
- 33.Ehrlich PF, Mychaliska GB, Teitelbaum DH. The 2 STEP: an approach to repeating a serial transverse enteroplasty. J Pediatr Surg 2007;42:819–22.Google Scholar
- 34.Morikawa N, Kuroda T, Kitano Y, et al. Repeat STEP procedure to establish enteral nutrition in an infant with short bowel syndrome. Pediatr Surg Int 2009;25:1007–11.Google Scholar
- 35.Piper H, Modi BP, Kim HB, et al. The second STEP: the feasibility of repeat serial transverse enteroplasty. J Pediatr Surg 2006;41:1951–6.Google Scholar
- 36.Oh JT, Koh H, Chang EY, et al. Second serial transverse enteroplasty procedure in an infant with extreme short bowel syndrome. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27:701–3.Google Scholar
- 37.Modi BP, Ching YA, Langer M, et al. Preservation of intestinal motility after the serial transverse enteroplasty procedure in a large animal model of short bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Jan;44(1):229–35.Google Scholar
- 38.Cserni T, Varga G, Erces D, Kaszaki J, et al. Spiral intestinal lengthening and tailoring - First in vivo study. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(9):1907–1913.Google Scholar
- 39.Mehrabi V, Mehrabi A, Jamshidi SH, et al. Modified Spiral Intestinal Lengthening and Tailoring for Short Bowel Syndrome. Surg Innov. 2016 Feb;23(1):30–5.Google Scholar