Computed tomography arterial portography for assessment of portal vein injury after blunt hepatic trauma

PURPOSE

Intrahepatic portal vein injuries secondary to blunt abdominal trauma are difficult to diagnose and can result in insidious bleeding. We aimed to compare computed tomography arterial portography (CTAP), reperfusion CTAP (rCTAP), and conventional computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing portal vein injuries after blunt hepatic trauma.

METHODS

Patients with blunt hepatic trauma, who were eligible for nonoperative management, underwent CTAP, rCTAP, and CT. The number and size of perfusion defects observed using the three methods were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 13 patients (seven males/six females) with a mean age of 34.5±14.1 years were included in the study. A total of 36 hepatic segments had perfusion defects on rCTAP and CT, while there were 47 hepatic segments with perfusion defects on CTAP. The size of perfusion defects on CT (239 cm³; interquartile range [IQR]: 129.5, 309.5) and rCTAP (238 cm³; IQR: 129.5, 310.5) were significantly smaller compared with CTAP (291 cm³; IQR: 136, 371) (both, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Perfusion defects measured by CTAP were significantly greater than those determined by either rCTAP or CT in cases of blunt hepatic trauma. This finding suggests that CTAP is superior to rCTAP and CT in evaluating portal vein injuries after blunt liver trauma.The liver is one of the most frequently injured solid abdominal organs in the setting of blunt abdominal trauma (1). Fortunately, most patients with blunt hepatic trauma have relatively stable vital signs and need only supportive treatment or transarterial embolization (TAE) (1–9). Only 15% of patients, who present with hemodynamic instability or fail with nonoperative management, require operative intervention to manage their liver injury.Embolic therapy has been shown to have a high success rate in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt hepatic injury. TAE is associated with decreased abdominal infections, decreased transfusions, and decreased length of hospital stay compared with operative management (2, 3, 7). However, angiography can only detect bleeding from the hepatic artery; it cannot locate bleeding from the hepatic or portal vein. In the literature, portal vein injuries are not commonly described and most are the result of penetrating injuries to the extrahepatic portal veins. Mortality after a portal vein injury due to trauma is primarily due to hypovolemic shock and can be as high as 50% or greater (10, 11).Since the intrahepatic portions of the hepatic and portal veins are low pressure systems, they can bleed insidiously. Nevertheless, this subtle bleeding may require multiple transfusions and result in a prolonged hospital stay. Relative to an extrahepatic portal vein injury, patients with an intrahepatic portal vein injury may have relatively stable vital signs and slowly decreasing hemoglobin levels (10, 11). In addition, traumatic occlusion and/or thrombosis of the portal vein may cause large hepatic parenchymal infarction.Computed tomography arterial portography (CTAP) is a useful method based on portal enhancement of the liver by infusion of contrast material through the superior mesenteric artery for evaluating the portal venous system (12–15) and is widely used in patients with hepatic tumors with portal venous invasion (13, 16, 17). CTAP has a high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of portal vein thrombosis due to tumor (90% sensitivity, 99% specificity, 95% positive predictive value, 97% negative predictive value) (14). However, few studies have focused specifically on the utility of CTAP in the evaluation of portal vein injury as a result of trauma.The liver has a dual blood supply and receives between 66% and 75% of its blood supply from the hepatic portal vein with the remainder supplied by the hepatic artery (18). CTAP reflects only portal venous perfusion while reperfusion CTAP (rCTAP) reflects hepatic arterial reperfusion. Both rCTAP and conventional computed tomography (CT) are useful for determining certain liver injuries. However, they do not specifically evaluate the portal vein.The purpose of this study was to compare CTAP, rCTAP, and CT for diagnosing portal vein injuries after blunt hepatic trauma. We hypothesized that CTAP would be superior to rCTAP and CT in assessing portal vein injury after blunt hepatic trauma.