title: A comparison of heterotopic and orthotopic intestinal transplantation in rats.
abstract: Two surgical techniques are commonly used for small intestinal transplantation: heterotopic (accessory) intestinal grafting (HIT), where the small bowel is initially defunctioned with restoration of intestinal continuity at a later date, and orthotopic (in continuity) intestinal grafting (OIT), where the small bowel is immediately anastomosed to the native intestine. The present experiments were undertaken to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two surgical models. Graft barrier function (intestinal permeability), intestinal histology, and graft survival were evaluated after heterotopic and orthotopic intestinal transplantation in the following groups of rats: group 1: isografts, group 2: untreated allografts, group 3: low-dose cyclosporine-treated allografts (subcutaneous CsA 2 mg/kg/day), and group 4: high-dose CsA-treated allografts (subcutaneous CsA 4 mg/kg/day). Intestinal permeability was consistently higher after HIT than OIT in all of the groups (ANOVA; P less than 0.01). Histological evidence of rejection appeared earlier after HIT than OIT (HIT 5th postoperative day (POD); OIT 7th POD; P less than 0.05). The mean survival of untreated allografts was longer after HIT than OIT (HIT 15.7 +/- 6 days, OIT 9.2 +/- 1 days, P less than 0.05). The rats treated with low-dose CsA after OIT lost weight and died of rejection after a mean survival time of 17.7 +/- 2 days, while the rats treated with low-dose CsA after HIT remained well until sacrifice on POD 28 (P less than 0.01). The rats with isografts and rats with allografts treated with high-dose CsA remained well after HIT and OIT until sacrifice on the 28th POD. These data suggest that nutrients and other factors in the succus entericus may improve gut barrier function and delay the onset of rejection after OIT. However, rejection of the orthotopic intestinal graft is usually fatal, while rejection of the heterotopic graft is often surprisingly well tolerated. These factors must be taken into consideration when choosing a surgical technique for intestinal transplantation in humans.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Grant
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Zhong
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hurlbut
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Garcia
authors.forename: H F
authors.initials: HF
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lamont
authors.forename: P Z
authors.initials: PZ
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Stiller
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Duff
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D006084:Graft Rejection; D007421:Intestine, Small / Q000378:metabolism / Q000473:pathology / Q000637:transplantation*; D008297:Male; D010539:Permeability; D051381:Rats; D011917:Rats, Inbred Lew; D011919:Rats, Inbred Strains; D015996:Survival Rate; D016042:Transplantation, Heterotopic; D014184:Transplantation, Homologous; D014185:Transplantation, Isogeneic