Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: An update

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) have been used in the treatment of complications of portal hypertension. TIPS is used for the control of acute variceal bleeding and for the prevention of vericeal rebleeding when pharmacologic therapy and endoscopic therapy have failed. Patients with refractory ascites with adequate hepatic reserve and renal function who fail to respond to large volume paracentesis may be reasonable candidates for TIPS. Promising indications for TIPS are Budd-Chiari syndrome uncontrolled by medical therapy, severe portal hypertensive gastropathy, refractory hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatorenal syndrome. TIPS cannot be recommended for preoperative portal decompression solely to facilitate liver transplantation. Special care should be taken to insure proper placement of the stent to avoid increasing the technical difficulty of the transplantation procedure. The major limiting factors for TIPS success are shunt dysfunction and hepatic encephalopathy. Because shunt stenosis is the most important cause of recurrent complications of portal hypertension, a surveillance program to monitor shunt patency is mandatory. The MELD score may be useful in predicting post-TIPS survival, and also in counseling patients and their families. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:207-217.)     

Liver Transplantation Due to Iatrogenic Injuries: Two Case Reports

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an acceptable procedure that has proven benefits in the treatment of patients who have complications from portal hypertension due to liver cirrhosis. In the literature few reports have described complications after TIPS placement. Initial surgery and local hemostasis have been needed to manage abdominal bleeding: if this treatment is insufficient, it may be necessary to perform a liver transplantation. This report describes the role of liver transplantation to manage dangerous complications in 2 patients after TIPS placement, when surgical procedures and hemostasis were unable to stop the bleeding.     

Misplacement of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts: A surgical challenge for liver transplantation?

BackgroundThe impact of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt misplacement on outcomes of liver transplantation remains controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature on the outcomes of liver transplantation with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt misplacement.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Cochrane library, PubMed, and Embase were searched (January 1990–April 2020) for studies reporting patients undergoing liver transplantation with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt misplacement.ResultsThirty-six studies reporting 181 patients who underwent liver transplantation with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt misplacement were identified. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was misplaced with a variable degree of extension toward the inferior vena cava/right heart in 63 patients (34%), the spleno/portal/superior mesenteric venous confluence in 105 patients (58%), and both in 15 patients (8%). Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt thrombosis was also present in 21 cases (12%). The median interval between transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement and liver transplantation ranged from 1 day to 6 years. Complete transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt removal was successfully performed in all but 12 (7%) patients in whom part of the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was left in situ. Cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass was necessary to remove transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt from the right heart in 4 patients (2%), and a venous graft interposition was necessary for a portal anastomosis in 5 patients (3%). Postoperative mortality (90 days) was 1.1% (2 patients), and portal vein thrombosis developed postoperatively in 4 patients (2%).ConclusionMisplaced transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt removal is possible in most cases during liver transplantation with extremely low mortality and good postoperative outcomes. Preoperative surgical strategy and intraoperative tailored surgical technique reduces the potential consequences of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt misplacement.     

Use of splenic artery embolization to relieve tense ascites following liver transplantation in a patient with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

Recurrent venous thrombosis following liver transplantation for Budd-Chiari syndrome is common, particularly in the setting of an underlying myeloproliferative disorder. We describe a patient who developed refractory ascites due to portal vein thrombosis following liver transplantation for Budd-Chiari syndrome in the setting of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Extensive portal vein thrombosis, dense abdominal adhesions, and portosystemic collaterals precluded the use of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or surgical portosystemic shunt to manage the patient's ascites. Splenic artery embolization to decrease portal hypertension was performed, and this resulted in complete resolution of ascites. This case demonstrates the successful use of splenic artery embolization to manage ascites due to portal vein thrombosis following liver transplantation. Splenic artery embolization may be considered as an alternative option for the management of refractory ascites due to portal hypertension in patients who are unable to undergo safe transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or surgical shunt placement.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for treatment of intractable colonic ischemia associated with portal hypertension: a bridge to liver transplantation.

A 64-year-old man with portal hypertension secondary to hepatic nodular transformation was awaiting liver transplantation when he presented with severe, unrelenting abdominal pain, fever, and hypotension. Computed tomographyrevealed pneumatosis within the cecum and ascending colon. Because of his advanced liver disease and the perceived high likelihood of a poor outcome after colonic resection, he was managed medically. He improved initially but had a lengthy hospital course notable for intractable intestinal ischemia and gastrointestinal bleeding. Magnetic resonance angiography demonstrated patent mesenteric, portal, and hepatic vessels. His blood pressure was typically 90/55 mm Hg (mean arterial pressure, 65-70 mm Hg) despite intravenous fluids and blood product replacement. The hypothesis developed that the patient's level of portal hypertension was sufficiently severe (in the face of his low mean systemic arterial pressure) to compromise perfusion of the colonic mucosa. Were this hypothesis correct, then portal decompression might enhance the blood pressure gradient across the bowel and improve mucosal perfusion. With this in mind, a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) was placed. There was reduction of the portal vein to inferior vena cava gradient from 29 mm Hg to 9 mm Hg and his abdominal pain and gastrointestinal bleeding ceased. His prompt and sustained improvement following TIPS shunt placement is consistent with the hypothesis that high portal pressure was flow limiting, thus contributing to persisting intestinal ischemia. This case represents the first report of use of a TIPS shunt to address colonic ischemia associated with portal hypertension.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt vs. small-diameter prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt: Extended follow-up of an expanded randomized prospective trial

We report herein the results of extended follow-up of an expanded randomized clinical trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) to 8 mm prosthetic H-graft portacaval shunt as definitive treatment for variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension. Beginning in 1993, through this trial, both shunts were undertaken as definitive therapy, never as a “bridge to transplantation.” All patients had bleeding esophageal/gastric varices and failed or could not undergo sclerotherapy/banding. Patients were excluded from randomization if the portal vein was occluded or if survival was hopeless. Failure of shunting was defined as inability to shunt, irreversible shunt occlusion, major variceal rehemorrhage, hepatic transplantation, or death. Median follow-up after each shunt was 4 years; minimum follow-up was 1 year. Patients undergoing placement of either shunt were very similar in terms of age, sex, cause of cirrhosis, Child’s class, and circumstances of shunting. Both shunts provided partial portal decompression, although the portal vein-inferior vena cava pressure gradient was lower after H-graft portacaval shunt (P<0.01). TIPS could not be placed in two patients. Shunt stenosis/occlusion was more frequent after TIPS. After TIPS, 42 patients failed (64%), whereas after H-graft portacaval shunt 23 failed (35%) (P <0.01). Major variceal rehemorrhage, hepatic transplantation, and late death were significantly more frequent after TIPS (P <0.01). Both TIPS and H-graft portacaval shunt achieve partial portal decompression. TIPS requires more interventions and leads to more major rehemorrhage, irreversible occlusion, transplantation, and death. Despite vigilance in monitoring shunt patency, TIPS provides less optimal outcomes than H-graft portacaval shunt for patients with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. Presented at the Forty-First Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, San Diego, Calif., May 21–24, 2000.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt: indications and long-term outcome

The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt has replaced surgical shunt procedures as the standard therapy for complications of portal hypertension such as refractory ascites and recurrent variceal bleeding. However, reinterventions due to TIPS stenosis are necessary in 25-50 %. Major complications are the manifestation or worsening of hepatic encephalopathy. Recent studies using PTFE covered stents have shown lower stenosis rates and a trend towards prolonged survival.     

Liver transplantation in patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal bleeding

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hemorrhage from esophageal varices is one of the most devastating complications of portal hypertension in patients with advanced cirrhosis. METHODS: Drug therapy, endoscopic therapy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), or surgical shunts are used with increasing success in the prevention and treatment of bleeding. However, all these treatment modalities have limitations because they do not treat the liver cirrhosis itself. On the other hand, treatment modalities for variceal bleeding may influence the ease of the feasibility of the transplantation procedure. This is particularly the case for surgical treatments like portosystemic shunts and devascularization operations. For this reason these procedures should be avoided if possible. When positioned correctly, a TIPS provides an elegant way of treating portal hypertension without influencing the course of liver transplantation. Liver transplantation offers a treatment that cures both the portal hypertension and the liver disease. However, the use of this method of treatment is limited by the organ availability and by the organ allocation algorithm, resulting in considerable waiting time. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, esophageal bleeding should be noticed as an early warning factor, leading the hepatologist to consider liver transplantation and early listing of the patient.     

Biliary-Venous Fistula Complicating Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Presenting With Recurrent Bacteremia, Jaundice, Anemia and Fever

A 50-year-old White man with noncirrhotic portal hypertension presented with bleeding from gastric varices. Bleeding was initially managed with band ligation and subsequent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Over the next few months, the patient had recurrent episodes of anemia, jaundice, fever and polymicrobial bacteremia. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and chest, upper and lower endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and echocardiography failed to explain the bacteremia and anemia. Follow-up CT scan and Doppler sonography 9 months after placement showed TIPS was occluded. Repeat ERCP showed a bile leak with free run-off of contrast from the left hepatic duct into a vascular structure. The patient's status was upgraded for liver transplantation with Regional Review Board agreement and subsequently received a liver transplant. Gross examination of the native liver demonstrated a fistula between the left bile duct and the middle hepatic vein. Pathologic evaluation confirmed focal necrosis of the left hepatic duct communicating with an occluded TIPS and nodular regenerative hyperplasia consistent with noncirrhotic portal hypertension. Infection is rarely reported in a totally occluded TIPS. Biliary fistulas in patent TIPS have been treated by endoluminal stent graft and endoscopic sphincterotomy with biliary stent placement. Liver transplantation may be the preferred treatment if TIPS becomes infected following its complete occlusion.     

The changing spectrum of treatment for variceal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of endoscopic therapy, liver transplantation, and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) on patient selection and outcome of surgical treatment for this complication of portal hypertension, as reflected in a single surgeon's 18-year experience with operations for variceal hemorrhage. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Definitive treatment of patients who bleed from portal hypertension has been progressively altered during the past 2 decades during which endoscopic therapy, liver transplantation, and TIPS have successively become available as alternative treatment options to operative portosystemic shunts and devascularization procedures. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three consecutive patients who were surgically treated for portal hypertensive bleeding between 1978 and 1996 were reviewed retrospectively. Four Eras separated by the dates when endoscopic therapy (January 1981), liver transplantation (July 1985), and TIPS (January 1993) became available in our institution were analyzed. Throughout all four Eras, a selective operative approach, using the distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), nonselective shunts, and esophagogastric devascularization, was taken. The most common indications for nonselective shunts and esophagogastric devascularization were medically intractable ascites and splanchnic venous thrombosis, respectively. Most other patients received a DSRS. RESULTS: The risk status (Child's class) of patients undergoing surgery progressively improved (p = 0.001) throughout the 4 Eras, whereas the need for emergency surgery declined (p = 0.002). The percentage of nonselective shunts performed decreased because better options to manage acute bleeding episodes (sclerotherapy, TIPS) and advanced liver disease complicated by ascites (liver transplantation, TIPS) became available (p = 0.009). In all Eras, the operative mortality rate was directly related to Child's class (A, 2.7%; B, 7.5%; and C, 26.1 %) (p = 0.001). As more good-risk patients underwent operations for variceal bleeding, the incidence of postoperative encephalopathy decreased (p = 0.015), and long-term survival improved (p = 0.012), especially since liver transplantation became available to salvage patients who developed hepatic failure after a prior surgical procedure. There were no differences between Eras with respect to rebleeding or shunt occlusion. Distal splenorenal shunts (p = 0.004) and nonselective shunts (p = 0.001) were more protective against rebleeding than was esophagogastric devascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential introduction of endoscopic therapy, liver transplantation, and TIPS has resulted in better selection and improved results with respect to quality and length of survival for patients treated surgically for variceal bleeding. Despite these innovations, portosystemic shunts and esophagogastric devascularization remain important and effective options for selected patients with bleeding secondary to portal hypertension.     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt as a bridge to liver transplant: Current state and future directions

Liver transplantation is one of the mainstays of treatment for liver failure due to severe chronic liver disease. Bridging therapies, such as placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), are frequently employed to control complications of portal hypertension such as ascites, hydrothorax, and variceal bleeding, and thereby reduce morbidity in patients awaiting transplant. There is no significant difference seen in either graft survival or patient survival between those receiving TIPS pre-transplant and those who do not, although those receiving TIPS placement on average have a longer waiting time on the transplant waitlist. Locoregional therapies, such as thermal ablation or chemoembolization, can be efficacious in patients with HCC and pre-existing TIPS; however there is a risk for increased adverse events in patients receiving these therapies who have TIPS compared to those who do not. In summary, TIPS is a safe, effective treatment that can be used to ameliorate the complications that are sequelae of portal hypertension. While it does not appear to improve survival post-transplant, TIPS placement pre-transplant may increase survival time to transplant, thus improving overall survival as well as quality of life.     

经颈静脉肝内门体分流术治疗门静脉海绵样变并发门静脉高压

目的探讨经颈静脉肝内门腔静脉分流术治疗合并门静脉海绵样变的门静脉高压症的疗效。方法 8例反复上消化道出血患者(均有肝硬化、门静脉高压)术前均经B超及CT等影像学证实伴有门静脉海绵样变,门静脉主干及左右支有完全或部分闭塞,对其行TIPS治疗,并评价疗效。结果对7例患者均成功施行TIPS术,1例失败,6例为先经皮穿刺右肝门静脉分支,建立经门静脉右支至主干通道,并行球囊扩张成形治疗。其中4例经常规TIPS途径由肝右静脉穿刺门静脉右支建立门腔静脉分流道,2例由门静脉右支穿刺右肝静脉建立门腔静脉分流道。1例穿刺门静脉右支失败,改由常规TIPS途径穿刺门静脉左支建立门腔静脉分流道。门静脉压力由术前的(33.72±8.35)mmHg降低至术后的(21.43±7.64)mmHg;1例在术后6个月发现分流道狭窄,再次植入支架后恢复通畅。1例术后5个月再发黑便,复查提示分流道堵塞,并门静脉广泛血栓形成,放弃进一步治疗。另5例在12个月随访中分流道通畅,未再发消化道出血。结论 TIPS是治疗伴门静脉海绵样变的门静脉高压症的安全、有效的方法。     

Impact of prior portosystemic shunt procedures on outcome of liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Cirrhotic patients may require portosystemic shunts as treatment for complications of portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to asses how these procedures may influence the orthotopic liver transplantation procedure and its outcome. METHODS: Forty-five patients with a previous portosystemic shunt were divided into 3 groups (group 1, 19 with a portocaval shunt; group 2, 4 with a mesocaval shunt and 5 with a distal splenorenal shunts; group 3, 17 with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). Forty-five patients without a shunt, matched for age, gender, pretransplant liver status, and year of transplantation, were selected as controls. Surgical time, transfusional requirement, intensive care unit and total hospital duration of stay, complications, retransplantation rate, and short- and long-term mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Group 1 showed a significantly longer surgical time, higher red blood cell transfusional requirements, longer intensive care unit and hospital stay, and greater short and long-term mortality than the controls. No significant differences were observed between groups 2 and 3 and the controls. CONCLUSIONS: In cirrhotic patients, surgically created portosystemic shunts involving the hepatic hilum have a negative impact on liver transplantation. This operation should be avoided in potential liver transplant candidates; surgical shunts that do not compromise the hepatic hilum or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts are preferred.     

Role of surgical portosystemic shunts in the era of interventional radiology and liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: In the present era of liver transplantation and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, the role and choice of shunt surgery for portal hypertension was reviewed. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed the management of patients with portal hypertension in a tertiary liver transplant unit between June 1993 and May 2002. During this 9-year interval, 394 patients underwent endoscopic control of varices, 235 transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts were inserted, 1142 liver transplants were performed, while only 29 patients needed a surgical portosystemic shunt. RESULTS: Twenty-nine shunt operations were performed in nine patients with cirrhosis, one patient with congenital hepatic fibrosis and 19 without parenchymal liver disease. There were 12 side-to-side lienorenal, nine mesocaval, three proximal lienorenal, two distal lienorenal, two portacaval and one mesoportal shunts. Encephalopathy was seen in five of 11 patients with a non-selective shunt, but did not occur after side-to-side or selective lienorenal shunt procedures. At a median follow-up of 42.5 months, one mesocaval shunt had thrombosed and one portacaval shunt had stenosed; both were successfully managed by percutaneous intervention. To date, six patients have died; two succumbed to postoperative complications, one of which was related to the shunt. CONCLUSION: Patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome and cirrhosis can nearly always be managed by a combination of endoscopy, interventional radiology and liver transplantation. In the rare instances when these therapies fail in patients with cirrhosis, a side-to-side lienorenal shunt is a good option.     

Portal hypertension and ascites

Portal hypertension is secondary to increased resistance to blood flow and increased blood flow through the portal system. The most common cause is liver cirrhosis. The most severe and life-threatening presentation of portal hypertension is acute variceal bleeding. Pharmacotherapy with vasoactive agents (terlipressin or somatostatin), endoscopic band ligation and radiological treatment with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPSS) are the most common treatment options for variceal bleeding. However, where surgical expertise exists, portosystemic shunts can be considered for refractory bleeding in patients without significant liver failure, especially when TIPSS is unavailable or contraindicated. Diuretic therapy with spironolactone and furosemide are the basis for the management of ascites. If ascites becomes refractory, repeat large volume paracentesis and TIPSS are potential treatment options. Liver transplantation offers the definitive treatment for portal hypertension secondary to cirrhosis as it cures the underlying liver disease.     

精准外科时代门静脉高压症的外科治疗策略

门静脉高压症最危重的并发症是食管静脉曲张破裂出血。药物治疗和内镜套扎是食管静脉曲张出血的一线治疗方法,非手术治疗失败或再出血时可考虑外科手术治疗。应根据患者的病因、病期和肝功能代偿状况,依据循证医学和精准外科治疗的理念,个体化选择分流术、断流术、肝脏移植等外科手术治疗。对于某些特殊类型的非肝硬化造成的肝外型门静脉高压症,Meso—Rex转流术可作为治愈性手术方法;而对于区域性的门静脉高压症,也可能通过外科手术治愈。     

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in adult liver recipient with delayed graft function

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has become an effective treatment for the complications of portal hypertension. We assessed the feasibility and outcome of TIPS in liver transplant recipients who developed delayed graft function (DGF) with portal hypertension. METHODS: From June 2003 to June 2004, 80 cadaveric orthotopic liver transplantation (OLTx) have been performed at our institution. Five patients (6.25%) developed DGF with hyperbilirubinemia and ascites with severe portal hypertension and were treated with TIPS placement (in the 6-month time period from the transplantation). RESULTS: There were no complications related to the procedure. No episodes of encephalopathy were seen. Four patients had better control of the ascites. In one case, we observed complete recovery of the transplanted liver with normalization of the liver function test. Three patients underwent retransplantation (within 7 days from the TIPS), whereas 1 is still on the list 6 months after TIPS placement with recurrent episodes of ascites. CONCLUSIONS: In our preliminary series, TIPS reduced dramatically the portosystemic gradient and improved clinical conditions. The results were negatively affected by the fact that the transplanted liver did not recover its function.     

Portal hypertension and ascites

Portal pressure is the product of portal blood flow and resistance; an increase in either leads to increased portal pressure. Cirrhosis is the underlying cause in most cases, but portal hypertension can develop due to prehepatic, intrahepatic and posthepatic obstruction to the flow, secondary to variety of causes. Diagnosis can be established by a combination of non-invasive imaging or portal vasculature and clinical or serological markers for the cause underlying cirrhosis. Development of gastro-oesophageal varices and ascites are the most important clinical manifestation of portal hypertension. Non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic band ligation are effective in primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding. Active variceal haemorrhage is managed using a combination of vasoactive drug (e.g. terlipressin) and endoscopic band ligation. If these measures fail, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion achieves haemostasis. Diuretic therapy with spironolactone and furosemide are the mainstays of management of ascites. If ascites becomes refractory, repeat large volume paracentesis and TIPS in selected cases help to control symptoms. Development of ascites is an important landmark in the natural history of cirrhosis and liver transplantation should be considered definitive treatment.     

Primary Budd-Chiari syndrome: outcome of endovascular management for suprahepatic venous obstruction

OBJECTIVE: Primary Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) is a rare form of hepatic venous outflow obstruction at the suprahepatic inferior vena cava (IVC), the hepatic veins, or both. We assessed our 4-year experience in the management of BCS to evaluate the results of our methods of care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a nonrandomized clinical trial conducted in three teaching hospitals. Among 28 primary BCS patients, 9 remained in medical treatment only, and 19 who failed to respond to medical treatment received additional endovascular (n = 17) or surgical therapy (n = 2). Nine underwent IVC balloon angioplasty alone, 6 had angioplasty plus stents, and 2 had transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) for hepatic vein lesions. One patient had a mesoatrial bypass; another had liver transplantation. Immediate response to the therapy was assessed with angiography and ultrasonography based on anatomic and/or hemodynamic correction or reduction of the lesion. Subsequent assessment of portal hypertension status was made with periodic clinical and laboratory evaluation (eg, ultrasonography, liver biopsy). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients had had IVC stenosis or occlusion by focal or segmental lesion. Two patients had hepatic vein outlet obstruction. There was no evidence of coagulopathy as the pathogenesis; all were related to membranous obstruction of the vena cava. Excellent immediate response to the endovascular therapy and subsequent relief of portal hypertension were achieved in 14 patients. Four patients had restenosis or progression of the residual lesion within 2 years; three responded to repeated stenting. Primary patency was 76.5%, and primary assisted patency was 94.1%. Two patients with TIPS and two with surgical therapy maintained excellent results. The medical treatment remained effective only in a limited group of 6 (21.4%) of the 28 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In BCS, both endovascular and surgical interventions provide excellent results and potentially halt liver parenchymal deterioration caused by portal hypertension. Liver transplantation remains the ultimate solution for advanced liver failure.     

不同手术方式对门静脉高压症病人肝功能性血流量的影响

目的　探讨TIPS、断流术、断流加分流术对肝功能性血流量的影响。方法　本组肝硬化门静脉高压症病人 37例 ,行TIPS治疗 8例、断流术 10例、TIPS +门奇静脉断流术 10例、门奇断流+脾肾分流术 9例。采用超声多普勒、D 山梨醇 (SOD)清除率和直接门静脉测压检测手术前后肝总血流量、肝功能性血流量和门静脉压。结果　术前病人门静脉、肝动脉和肝总血流量显著增加 ,肝功能性血流量显著下降 ,ChildC级病人下降更为显著。TIPS、TIPS +断流术和断流 +脾肾分流术后门静脉压力和肝功能性血流量均明显下降 (P <0 .0 5 )。其中 ,TIPS术后肝功能性血流量下降显著大于TIPS +断流术和断流 +脾肾分流术。断流术病人门静脉压和肝功能性血流量无明显变化。结论　肝功能性血流是评估肝脏储备功能的重要指标 ,分流术在降低门静脉压力同时减少肝功能性血流量。