改良脾腔静脉分流联合断流术治疗食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血

目的 探讨改良脾腔静脉分流联合贲门周围断流术治疗门静脉高压症食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析1997年至2007年陕西省人民医院采用改良脾腔静脉分流联合贲门周围血管断流术(90例,联合组)及贲门周围血管断流术(78例,断流组)治疗门静脉高压症食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血患者的临床资料,应用彩色多普勒超声、术中门静脉压力监测等观察开腹后和术后门静脉系统血流动力学变化.采用方差分析及配对t检验和x2检验分析相关数据.结果 联合组和断流组患者手术死亡率分别为3%(3/90)和5%(4/78),其差异无统计学意义(x2=0.038,P＞0.05);术后远期出血率分别为6%(5/79)和13%(8/60),其差异有统计学意义(x2=4.824,P<0.05);肝性脑病发生率分别为6%(5/79)和7%(4/60),其差异无统计学意义(x2=0.072,P＞0.05);术后1、3、5、10年生存率分别为97%(77/79)、92%(55/60)、80%(16/20)、60%(3/5)和97%(58/60)、83%(40/48)、73%(22/30)、53%(8/15),其差异无统计学意义(x2=0.731,P＞0.05).联合组开腹后和术后门静脉压力分别为(38.8±4.2)、(33.1±1.5)cm H2O(1 cm H2O=0.098 kPa),其差异有统计学意义(t=8.574,P<0.05);断流组开腹后和术后门静脉压力分别为(38.9±2.5)、(34.6±2.6)cm H2O,其差异有统计学意义(t=6.530,P<0.05);两组患者术后门静脉压力比较差异有统计学意义(t=2.859,P<0.05).联合组开腹后和术后门静脉直径分别为(1.40±0.41)、(1.22±0.15)cm,其差异有统计学意义(t=2.608,P<0.05);血流量分别为(1280±350)、(830±360)ml/min,其差异有统计学意义(t=5.668,P<0.05).断流组开腹后和术后门静脉直径分别为(1.41±0.32)、(1.27±0.32)cm,其差异无统计学意义(t=1.637,P＞0.05);血流量分别为(1350±380)、(980±290)ml/min,其差异有统计学意义(t=4.096,P<0.05).两组患者术后门静脉血流量比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.871,P＞0.05).结论 改良脾腔静脉分流联合断流术止血效果确切、再出血率低,血流动力学变化合理,临床疗效满意,是治疗门静脉高压症食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的较佳术式.

Modified splenocaval shunt combined with pericardial devascularization in the treatment of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding

Objective To investigate the clinical effects of a modified splenocaval shunt combined with pericardial devascularization ( PCDV ) in the treatment of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. Methods From 1997 to 2007, 168 patients with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding caused by portal hypertension were treated at the People's Hospital of Shaanxi Province. Among all the patients, 90 received a splenocaval shunt + PCDV(combined group) and the remaining 78 received PCDV (PCDV group). Changes in intra- and postoperative hemodynamics of the portal venous system were detected by Doppler color flow imaging, and free portal pressure was measured intraoperatively. All data were analysed using analysis of variance, the paired t test and chi-square test.Results The mortality was 3% (3/90) in the combined group and 5% (4/78) in the PCDV group, with no significant difference between the two groups (x2 = 0.038, P ＞0.05 ). The postoperative rebleeding rate was 6%(5/79) in the combined group, which was significantly lower than 13% (8/60) in the PCDV group (x2 =4.824,P ＜ 0.05 ). The incidence of hepatic encephalopathy was 6% (5/79) in the combined group and 7% (4/60) in the PCDV group, with no significant difference between the two groups ( x2 = 0.072, P ＞ 0.05 ). The 1-, 3-, 5-,and 10-year survival rates were 97% (77/79), 92% (55/60), 80% (16/20) and 60% (3/5) in the combined group, and 97% (58/60), 83% (40/48), 73% (22/30) and 53% (8/15) in the PCDV group, respecitvely,with no significant difference between the two groups ( x2 = 0.731, P ＞ 0.05 ). The intra- and postoperative portal pressures in the combined group were (38.8±4.2) cm H20 ( 1 cm H2O =0. 098 kPa) and (33.1 ± 1.5) cm H2O,with a significant difference ( t = 8. 574, P ＜ 0.05 ). The intra-and postoperative portal pressures in the PCDV group were (38.9±2.5) cm H2O and (34.6±2.6) cm H2O, with a significant difference (t =6. 530, P ＜0.05 ). There was also a significant difference in postoperative portal pressure between the two groups ( t = 2. 859,P ＜ 0.05 ). The intra-and postoperative diameters of the portal vein in the combined group were (1.40 ± 0.41 )cm and ( 1.22 ± 0. 15) cm, respectively, with a significant difference ( t = 2. 608, P ＜ 0.05 ). The intra-and postoperative portal venous flows in the combined group were (1280 ±350) ml/min and (830±360) ml/min, with a significant difference ( t = 5. 668, P ＜ 0. 05 ). The intra-and postoperative diameters of the portal vein in the PCDV group were ( 1.41 ±0.32) cm and ( 1.27 ±0.32) cm, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (t = 1. 637, P ＞ 0.05 ). The intra-and postoperative portal venous flows in the combined group were ( 1350 ± 380) ml/min and (980 ± 290) ml/min, with a significant difference ( t = 4. 096, P ＜ 0.05 ). There was no significant difference in postoperative portal venous flow between the two groups ( t = 1.871, P ＞ 0.05 ).Conclusions The modified splenocaval shunt combined with PCDV is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrent rebleeding. The clinical outcome and rational hemodynamic changes show that the combined procedure of splenocaval shunt and PCDV is a good choice for treatment of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding.