Medical Forum / General / General / September 2005
Why No GI Transplants?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
John Schutkeker - 08 Aug 2005 22:00 GMT Is it because it is difficult to connect the nerves of the transplant to the patient's pre-existing roots?
Jeff - 08 Aug 2005 22:53 GMT > Is it because it is difficult to connect the nerves of the transplant to > the patient's pre-existing roots? There are intestine transplants, especially in young kids, but, there are big problems with rejection. So it is done only in extreme cases.
Jeff
John Schutkeker - 10 Aug 2005 21:46 GMT >> Is it because it is difficult to connect the nerves of the transplant >> to the patient's pre-existing roots? > > There are intestine transplants, especially in young kids, but, there > are big problems with rejection. So it is done only in extreme cases. Why should rejection be worse than any other transplant? What about esophageal transplants?
Howard McCollister - 11 Aug 2005 13:28 GMT >>> Is it because it is difficult to connect the nerves of the transplant >>> to the patient's pre-existing roots? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why should rejection be worse than any other transplant? What about > esophageal transplants? The extensive lymphatic network of the small intestine provides a more aggressive immunological response making rejection more problematic than for other organ transplants.
Esophageal allograft transplants are generally unnecessary. If a person's esophagus needs to be removed, it is replaced with a portion of the patient's colon, or by creating a tube out of the stomach and pulling it up , sewing it proximally in the chest or in the neck. This generally works well and provides no rejection problem.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 12 Aug 2005 18:55 GMT > Esophageal allograft transplants are generally unnecessary. If a > person's esophagus needs to be removed, it is replaced with a portion > of the patient's colon, or by creating a tube out of the stomach and > pulling it up , sewing it proximally in the chest or in the neck. This > generally works well and provides no rejection problem. Then why are bypasses necessary?
Howard McCollister - 12 Aug 2005 22:10 GMT >> Esophageal allograft transplants are generally unnecessary. If a >> person's esophagus needs to be removed, it is replaced with a portion [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then why are bypasses necessary? There's no such thing as an esophageal bypass.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 30 Aug 2005 16:30 GMT "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:42fd0fb2$0$16191 $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
>>> Esophageal allograft transplants are generally unnecessary. If a >>> person's esophagus needs to be removed, it is replaced with a portion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There's no such thing as an esophageal bypass. Then what's the name of the surgery to allow a patient to feed himself through a tube in his side, squirting liquified food directly into his stomach? It certainly does bypass the esophagus!
Howard McCollister - 30 Aug 2005 16:42 GMT > "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:42fd0fb2$0$16191 > $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > through a tube in his side, squirting liquified food directly into his > stomach? It certainly does bypass the esophagus! That's called a tube gastrostomy, not an "esophageal bypass". It has nothing to do with the discussion of esophageal replacment.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 31 Aug 2005 23:24 GMT > That's called a tube gastrostomy, not an "esophageal bypass". It has > nothing to do with the discussion of esophageal replacment. Why isn't esophageal replacement an alternative to gastrostomy?
Howard McCollister - 31 Aug 2005 23:37 GMT >> That's called a tube gastrostomy, not an "esophageal bypass". It has >> nothing to do with the discussion of esophageal replacment. > > Why isn't esophageal replacement an alternative to gastrostomy? Esophageal replacement is a huge operation. Gastrostomy is a 10 minute procedure under local anesthesia. Gastrostomy, in some cases, is an alternative to esophageal replacment. Not vice-versa.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 02 Sep 2005 06:27 GMT "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:431630c8$0$239 $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
> Esophageal replacement is a huge operation. No doubt, since all transplants are. But it has been done, and it turns out that it was invented by Henry Heimlich. What is the technical name of this procedure, and what are the names and locations of the researchers who specialize in this?
Howard McCollister - 02 Sep 2005 13:23 GMT > "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:431630c8$0$239 > $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who > specialize in this? Gavriliu's Operation (not Heimlich) is of historical interest only. Esophageal replacement is done pretty routinely these days, using a either a gastric tube (non-reversed) or a length of transverse colon. There are two methods of esophageal replacement - the two-stage Ivor-Lewis esophagogastrectomy, where the stomach is sewn to the esophagus in the chest, or the one stage blunt esophagectomy with attachment of the stomach to the esophagus in the neck (Orringer and Sloan).
These operations are widely available. State of the art is laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastrostomy. That isn't so widely available because of the technical difficulty and the general lack of advanced endoscopic ability by many surgeons, especially those surgeons at many major medical institutions.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 03 Sep 2005 08:27 GMT > Esophageal replacement is done pretty routinely these days, using a > either a gastric tube (non-reversed) or a length of transverse colon.
> Gavriliu's Operation (not Heimlich) is of historical interest only. Why aren't they both of historical interest? Is Gavriliu a Frenchman? If so, has esophageal transplant ever been tried here in America?
I'm trying to think of a way to do it without sacrificing part of my colon. No doubt that will give me problem using the toilet, and I'd also be worried about sepsis from surgical exposure to the feces in my colon.
The advantage of nobody doing transplants is that (putting aside the fact that the organs aren't being harvested) there will be a theoretical oversupply of organs. That means that my odds of getting a good tissue match would be high. Am I correct in concluding that should reduce my reliance on immunosuppressive drugs?
The bad thing would be that it's an experimental procedure, and my insurance wouldn't cover it. So I'd be in debt for a hundred grand when it was over.
> State of the art is > laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy with cervical > esophagogastrostomy. The great thing about this is that they're using stents now, which is a non-surgical alternative that's also state of the art. I'm still at stage II erosive esophagitis, with no sign yet of Barrett's disease. But this has clearly become progressive, so it will be coming in the foreseeable future?
How aggressive is Barrett's cancer? That's a squamous cell carcinoma, right? Isn't that a non-aggressive tumor?
Howard McCollister - 03 Sep 2005 14:21 GMT >> Esophageal replacement is done pretty routinely these days, using a >> either a gastric tube (non-reversed) or a length of transverse colon. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > How aggressive is Barrett's cancer? That's a squamous cell carcinoma, > right? Isn't that a non-aggressive tumor? You seem to be laboring under a number of serious misimpressions. Your research has been incomplete, you have grossly misunderstood it, or your doctor has done a poor job of explaining things to you.
Gavriliu's operation and the Heimlich operation are the same operation (reversed gastric tube). They were both described in the '50's. Gavriliu did it first, Hemilich did it several years later and took credit. It doesn't matter, that operation is rarely done anymore and has no applicability to your situation anyway.
Esophageal stenting is by no means "state of the art". They have been around for decades, but are only used for frank cancers of the esophagus that can't be cured. They are used for palliation only in patients who are terminal. The only recent advance in stenting has been expanding mesh stents, which are indeed an improvement over the old plastic Celestin tubes, but have absolutely no place in someone who has erosive esophagitis only, or even Barrett's esophagus. Palliation for terminal cancer. Only. If your doctor were to suggest that you have an esophageal stent placed, he is saying to you that you are going to die of your esophageal cancer within a matter of months.
There is no such thing as "Barrett's Cancer". Barrett's esophagus is not cancer. It is a *pre* cancerous condition that sets the stage for the possibility of adenocarcinoma (not squamous cell cancer) of the esophagus. The majority of people with Barrett's esophagus will *not* develop adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, just as not every smoker will develop lung cancer. Your situation, you say, is that you don't even have Barrett's esophagus, so I suppose you could say you have a pre-pre-pre-cancerous condition. (reflux->Barrett's->Barrett's with dysplasia->adenocarcinoma).
Cancer of the esophagus, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, tends to be aggressive and 5 year survival is very low.
As I said several posts ago, there are no esophageal transplants in the sense that you are referring to. *IF* you were to develop severe dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (*very* precancerous), or *IF* you were to develop frank invasive cancer of the esophagus, your surgeon would recommend an operation where the esophagus is removed and the stomach is mobilized up into your chest and connected to the esophageal remnant in the neck or proximal chest. Note that this is not a "reversed-gastric tube". Also note that this is not a transplant, it's just a "rearrangement" of your own tissue. There is no potential for rejection - it is your own body tissue, so no immunosuppressive drugs are needed. There are no esophageal transplants. They don't harvest some dead guy's esophagus to put into you. About the only circumstance where they would use your colon instead of your stomach is if you had had previous gastric surgery that precluded the used of your stomach.
None of these things are experimental. They are all established therapies that insurance companies pay for.
I don't know what "Stage II" erosive esophagitis is. Erosive esophagitis is an *acute* condition that has to be addressed acutely and cured. It's diagnosed only by EGD, is treated with high dose PPI medication (Nexium etc), and a followup scope is indicated to be sure that the erosive esophagitis is cured. If erosive esophagitis can't be controlled with acid-suppressing medication, or if erosive esophagits keeps coming back, then surgery is indicated to stop the reflux.
People who have GERD, especially with recurrent esophagitis, need ongoing surveillance with EGD every 1-3 years to determine whether on not Barrett's esophagus is developing or progressing.
You need to sit down with your doctor and clarify your situation and options.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 03 Sep 2005 19:53 GMT "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:4319a2ee$0$281 $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
> You seem to be laboring under a number of serious misimpressions. Your > research has been incomplete, you have grossly misunderstood it, or your > doctor has done a poor job of explaining things to you. Thank you very much for the information. My doctor, like most, explains nothing to me, and is not worth the $100 per session I pay him for the three minutes of his time I get. Your fine explanation is easily worth $100, and it's too bad that's this is not a pay service, because I'd be happy to pay for what you just gave me.
The sad thing is that is of all the teaching hospitals in SE Michigan, Beaumont Hospital has the best patient care in the Detroit Metro Area, and my doctor's GI clinic was named best by the local magazine that ranks such things. For better care, I'd have to go to the Univ of MI, which is second only to top tier institutions like the Cleveland Clinic and the Ivies.
There's something endemically wrong with the entire medical profession if such a qualified doctor can't communicate important information like this to a patient with an MS from MIT, ie. me. You guys are too used to talking to stupid people, and when somebody smart walks into the room, you still talk to him as though he were stupid.
You are the exception, but you'll notice that I had to provoke you to get you to tell me what the score is. That didn't work on my regular doctors, and now they're pissed off at me. But you guys might accomplish a lot more if you didn't patronize your patients. At least not when they're Ivy Leaguers.
Howard McCollister - 03 Sep 2005 21:19 GMT > "Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:4319a2ee$0$281 > $bb4e3ad8@newscene.com: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > if you didn't patronize your patients. At least not when they're Ivy > Leaguers. You had to provoke me because I started this internet discussion with the assumption that you were intelligent and knew how to use Google. My explanation came when it became clear after several posts that you were intent on proving the opposite.
If you think that this method is a good way to get a rational and satisfactory conversation out of your doctor, then I think I understand wherein lies your perceived problems in communicating with him/her. I'm sure he/she perceived your method and doesn't have time for such silly game-playing.
HMc
If your means of trying to "provoke" your doctors is the same as your means of "provoking" me, i.e. by asking incessantly and increasingly stupid questions, then it's no wonder they lost patience with you. They don't have the time to play those silly games. Rather than blaming your doctors, you might want to examine your communication skills and see if there might not be some areas that could use some improvement. My assumption was that you were intelligent and knew how to use Google. You seemed intent on proving the opposite.
John Schutkeker - 07 Sep 2005 08:40 GMT > I started this internet discussion with > the assumption that you knew how to use Google. I started this discussion with a question, and when I was in grad school, my thesis advisor's answer to every question was "Go look it up in the library." That translates to "I don't know the answer," or "I don't feel like answering." Either way, if you don't want to answer, then don't.
bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu - 07 Sep 2005 13:18 GMT >> I started this internet discussion with >> the assumption that you knew how to use Google. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >library." That translates to "I don't know the answer," or "I don't feel >like answering." Either way, if you don't want to answer, then don't. Maybe your thesis advisor was trying to teach you to do research. That's the usual purpose of graduate school. It looks like the poor fellow didn't succeed, and not for lack of trying.
Btw, helpful hint for life: if you want people to help you, be polite. If you demand help, or insult them first or afterwards, or tell them that you are superior to them, or that they should shut up if they don't give you what you want, they will be less inclined to help you. Most people learn this long before graduate school. Decades, even.
John Schutkeker - 05 Sep 2005 12:21 GMT > *IF* you were to develop > frank invasive cancer of the esophagus, your surgeon would recommend > an operation where the esophagus is removed and the stomach is > mobilized up into your chest and connected to the esophageal remnant > in the neck or proximal chest. What's the name of this procedure, and what are its disadvantages? With a missing esophagus, I would expect that, instead of getting acid reflux into your esophagus, you'd get backflow of chyme (or pure digestive juices, in the case of an empty stomach) into your mouth. That sounds like a pretty extreme handicap to have to live with, and would be akin to having small vomiting episodes, several times a day.
> I don't know what "Stage II" erosive esophagitis is. Google will tell you the answer.
> Erosive > esophagitis is an *acute* condition that has to be addressed acutely > and cured. It's diagnosed only by EGD, is treated with high dose PPI > medication (Nexium etc), They don't work on me. I'm completely immune to those worthless drugs.
> If erosive esophagitis can't be > controlled with acid-suppressing medication, or if erosive esophagits > keeps coming back, then surgery is indicated to stop the reflux. What is the technical name of this surgery, and what does it involve?
Howard McCollister - 05 Sep 2005 20:08 GMT > What's the name of this procedure, and what are its disadvantages? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/08bfd93b38ea9b5b?hl=en&
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=esophagectomy&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=esophagogastrectomy+ivor+lewis&btnG=Search
>With > a missing esophagus, I would expect that, instead of getting acid reflux > into your esophagus, you'd get backflow of chyme (or pure digestive > juices, in the case of an empty stomach) into your mouth. That sounds > like a pretty extreme handicap to have to live with, and would be akin > to having small vomiting episodes, several times a day. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=reflux+after+esophagectomy&btnG=Search
>> If erosive esophagitis can't be >> controlled with acid-suppressing medication, or if erosive esophagits >> keeps coming back, then surgery is indicated to stop the reflux. > > What is the technical name of this surgery, and what does it involve? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antireflux+surgery&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nissen+fundoplication&btnG=Search
Google will tell you the answers.
HMc
John Schutkeker - 07 Sep 2005 09:34 GMT > http://www.google.com/search?l=en&lr=&q=esophagogastrectomy+ivor+lewis > &btnG=Search > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nissen+fundoplication&btnG=Sea > rch The reason why I didn't use Google is because I didn't know that magic keystrings to search for - "esophagogastrectomy" "ivor/lewis" "fundoplication" and "Nissen."
The reason why I come to sci.med before Google is because wading through all the technical details of another man's specialty is so stressful that it gives me reflux. And when with acute EE, that's a crisis in the making.
Howard McCollister - 07 Sep 2005 13:57 GMT > The reason why I didn't use Google is because I didn't know that magic > keystrings to search for - "esophagogastrectomy" "ivor/lewis" > "fundoplication" and "Nissen." Even though I told what the names of those operations were in message http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/08bfd93b38ea9b5b?hl=en&
C'mon John, you've told us how smart you are (master's from MIT etc). You complain bitterly about the communications skills of the doctors you deal with, but it appears that you're not even listening to what you've been told.
HMc
schwartz - 02 Sep 2005 22:36 GMT > it turns out that it was invented by Henry Heimlich Apparently not:
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/16/loc_heimlich16.html
John Schutkeker - 03 Sep 2005 08:33 GMT > http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/16/loc_heimlich16.html This is really interesting, and we have something similar in mathematics. The procedure for solving a cubic equation is named for a famous Rennaissance University professor named Cardano, but apparently it was developed by a non-famous mathematician, who taught it to a man who became one of Cardano's students.
If I ever publish anything that uses that method, I'm citing both names.
|
|
|