BACKGROUND: Treatment with a single donor-specific transfusion (DST) plus a brief course of anti-CD154 monoclonal antibody (mAb) prolongs skin allograft survival in mice. It is known that prolongation of allograft survival by this method depends in part on deletion of alloreactive CD8(+) T cells at the time of tolerance induction. Recent data suggest that infection with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) abrogates the ability of this protocol to prolong graft survival. METHODS: To study the mechanism by which viral infection abrogates allograft survival, we determined (1) the fate of tracer populations of alloreactive transgenic CD8(+) T cells and (2) the duration of skin allograft survival following treatment with DST and anti-CD154 mAb in the presence or absence of LCMV infection. RESULTS: We confirmed that treatment of uninfected mice with DST and anti-CD154 mAb leads to the deletion of alloreactive CD8(+) T cells and is associated with prolongation of skin allograft survival. In contrast, treatment with DST and anti-CD154 mAb in the presence of intercurrent LCMV infection was associated with the failure to delete alloreactive CD8(+) T cells and with the rapid rejection of skin allografts. The number of alloreactive CD8(+) cells actually increased significantly, and the cells acquired an activated phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Interference with the deletion of alloreactive CD8(+) T cells mediated by DST and anti-CD154 mAb may in part be the mechanism by which viral infection abrogates transplantation tolerance induction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery with the HandPort System, a new device. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, the surgeon inserts a hand into the abdomen while pneumoperitoneum is maintained. The hand assists laparoscopic instruments and is helpful in complex laparoscopic cases. METHODS: A prospective nonrandomized study was initiated with the participation of 10 laparoscopic surgical centers. Surgeons were free to test the device in any situation where they expected a potential advantage over conventional laparoscopy. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were entered in the study. Operations included colorectal procedures (sigmoidectomy, right colectomy, resection rectopexy), splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for morbid obesity, partial gastrectomy, and various other procedures. Mean incision size for the HandPort was 7.4 cm. Most surgeons (78%) preferred to insert their nondominant hand into the abdomen. Pneumoperitoneum was generally maintained at 14 mmHg, and only one patient required conversion to open surgery as a result of an unmanageable air leak. Hand fatigue during surgery was noted in 20.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The hand-assisted technique appeared to be useful in minimally invasive colorectal surgery, splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures considered too complex for a laparoscopic approach. This approach provides excellent means to explore, to retract safely, and to apply immediate hemostasis when needed. Although the data presented here reflect the authors' initial experience, they compare favorably with series of similar procedures performed purely laparoscopically.

OBJECTIVE: The authors review studies relating to the immune responses evoked by laparoscopic surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic surgery has gained rapid acceptance based on clinical grounds. Patients benefit from faster recovery, decreased pain, and quicker return to normal activities. Only more recently have attempts been made to identify the metabolic and immune responses that may underlie this clinical success. The immune responses to laparoscopy are now being evaluated in relation to the present knowledge of immune responses to traditional laparotomy and surgery in general. METHODS: A review of the published literature of the immune and metabolic responses to laparoscopy was performed. Laparoscopic surgery is compared with the traditional laparotomy on the basis of local and systemic immune responses and patterns of tumor growth. The impact of pneumoperitoneum and insufflation gases on the immune response is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The systemic immune responses for surgery in general may not apply to laparoscopic surgery. The body's response to laparoscopy is one of lesser immune activation as opposed to immunosuppression.