Site of splenic autotransplantation affects protection from sepsis

Charles D. Livingston, Barry A. Levine, Kenneth R Sirinek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using an animal model with bacteria delivered through the respiratory tract, the relative protective effects of subcutaneous and intraperitoneal splenic autotransplants were compared. Animals with intraperitoneal implants demonstrated a mortality not different from that in control animals and an early mortality significantly lower than found in splenectomized animals. Subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation provided no protective effect. The inability of extraperitoneal subcutaneous implants to protect against postsplenectomy pulmonary sepsis in our model suggests that subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation is an inappropriate alternative to intraperitoneal splenic autotransplantation in the clinical setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)734-737
Number of pages4
JournalThe American Journal of Surgery
Volume146
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1983
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Autologous Transplantation
Sepsis
Mortality
Autografts
Respiratory System
Animal Models
Bacteria
Lung

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Site of splenic autotransplantation affects protection from sepsis. / Livingston, Charles D.; Levine, Barry A.; Sirinek, Kenneth R.

In: The American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 146, No. 6, 1983, p. 734-737.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Livingston, Charles D. ; Levine, Barry A. ; Sirinek, Kenneth R. / Site of splenic autotransplantation affects protection from sepsis. In: The American Journal of Surgery. 1983 ; Vol. 146, No. 6. pp. 734-737.
@article{69a9439ef4d24dbca3733c615c45d881,
title = "Site of splenic autotransplantation affects protection from sepsis",
abstract = "Using an animal model with bacteria delivered through the respiratory tract, the relative protective effects of subcutaneous and intraperitoneal splenic autotransplants were compared. Animals with intraperitoneal implants demonstrated a mortality not different from that in control animals and an early mortality significantly lower than found in splenectomized animals. Subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation provided no protective effect. The inability of extraperitoneal subcutaneous implants to protect against postsplenectomy pulmonary sepsis in our model suggests that subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation is an inappropriate alternative to intraperitoneal splenic autotransplantation in the clinical setting.",
author = "Livingston, {Charles D.} and Levine, {Barry A.} and Sirinek, {Kenneth R}",
year = "1983",
doi = "10.1016/0002-9610(83)90329-X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "146",
pages = "734--737",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Site of splenic autotransplantation affects protection from sepsis

AU - Livingston, Charles D.

AU - Levine, Barry A.

AU - Sirinek, Kenneth R

PY - 1983

Y1 - 1983

N2 - Using an animal model with bacteria delivered through the respiratory tract, the relative protective effects of subcutaneous and intraperitoneal splenic autotransplants were compared. Animals with intraperitoneal implants demonstrated a mortality not different from that in control animals and an early mortality significantly lower than found in splenectomized animals. Subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation provided no protective effect. The inability of extraperitoneal subcutaneous implants to protect against postsplenectomy pulmonary sepsis in our model suggests that subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation is an inappropriate alternative to intraperitoneal splenic autotransplantation in the clinical setting.

AB - Using an animal model with bacteria delivered through the respiratory tract, the relative protective effects of subcutaneous and intraperitoneal splenic autotransplants were compared. Animals with intraperitoneal implants demonstrated a mortality not different from that in control animals and an early mortality significantly lower than found in splenectomized animals. Subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation provided no protective effect. The inability of extraperitoneal subcutaneous implants to protect against postsplenectomy pulmonary sepsis in our model suggests that subcutaneous splenic autotransplantation is an inappropriate alternative to intraperitoneal splenic autotransplantation in the clinical setting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021047321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021047321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0002-9610(83)90329-X

DO - 10.1016/0002-9610(83)90329-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 6228155

AN - SCOPUS:0021047321

VL - 146

SP - 734

EP - 737

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 6

ER -