» Articles » PMID: 3790429

Morphology of Intestinal Allograft Rejection and the Inadequacy of Mucosal Biopsy in Its Recognition

Overview
Journal Br J Exp Pathol
Specialty Pathology
Date 1986 Oct 1
PMID 3790429
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Small intestinal segmental autografts and allografts in dogs were examined histologically to assess changes associated with the surgical technique, the effect of different luminal perfusates and for evidence of rejection. Some animals were immunosuppressed with Cyclosporin A. Specimens for examination were obtained by biopsy at regular intervals after transplantation, at death or when killed. Typical vascular changes of rejection were identified only within some allografts and in others the cause of graft failure remains conjectural. When there was rejection characteristic lesions were confined to the submucosa and muscle coats while changes in the mucosa were similar to those in the autografts. These mucosal features were affected by the nature of the perfusate and often appeared transiently after grafting. Mucosal biopsy as a way of monitoring intestinal allograft rejection neither reveals a sequential pattern of changes, nor provides a reliable method of recognition of the reaction. In contrast full thickness biopsies of the intestinal wall do appear to fulfil both of these requirements.

Citing Articles

Effect of rejection on electrophysiologic function of canine intestinal grafts: correlation with histopathology and Na-K-ATPase activity.

Takeyoshi I, Zhang S, Kokudo Y, Nakamura K, Ikoma A, Zhu Y J Invest Surg. 1995; 8(4):223-34.

PMID: 8519738 PMC: 2958662. DOI: 10.3109/08941939509031596.


In situ proliferating status of mononuclear cells in rat small bowel grafts.

Okamoto M, Arakawa K, Fushiki S Int J Exp Pathol. 1995; 76(4):277-86.

PMID: 7547442 PMC: 1997186.


Current status of intestinal transplantation.

Watson A, Lear P Gut. 1989; 30(12):1771-82.

PMID: 2693234 PMC: 1434455. DOI: 10.1136/gut.30.12.1771.


Multivisceral intestinal transplantation: surgical pathology.

Jaffe R, Trager J, Zeevi A, Duquesnoy R, Todo S, Rowe M Pediatr Pathol. 1989; 9(6):633-54.

PMID: 2557597 PMC: 2972733. DOI: 10.3109/15513818909022372.


Rejection of multivisceral allografts in rats: a sequential analysis with comparison to isolated orthotopic small-bowel and liver grafts.

Murase N, Demetris A, Kim D, Todo S, Fung J, Starzl T Surgery. 1990; 108(5):880-9.

PMID: 2237770 PMC: 3032401.


References
1.
Lossing A, Nordgren S, Cohen Z, Cullen J, Craddock G, Langer B . Histologic monitoring of rejection in small intestinal transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1982; 14(4):643-5. View

2.
Cohen Z, Nordgren S, Lossing A, Cullen J, Craddock G, Langer B . Morphologic studies of intestinal allograft rejection. Immunosuppression with cyclosporine. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984; 27(4):228-34. DOI: 10.1007/BF02553789. View

3.
Kirkman R . Small bowel transplantation. Transplantation. 1984; 37(5):429-33. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-198405000-00001. View

4.
HARDY J . The university surgeon and his society: reflections and perspectives. Surgery. 1962; 52:1-8. View

5.
PRESTON F, MACALALAD F, Graber R, Jackson E, Sporn J . FUNCTION AND SURVIVAL OF JEJUNAL HOMOTRANSPLANTS IN DOGS WITH AND WITHOUT IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT. Transplantation. 1965; 3:224-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-196503000-00009. View