Transplantation proceedings · 2015
Surgical Management of Large Spontaneous Portosystemic Splenorenal Shunts During Liver Transplantation: Splenectomy or Left Renal Vein Ligation?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Golse N, Mohkam K, Rode A, Mezoughi S, Demian H, Ducerf C, Mabrut J-Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Management of splenorenal shunt (SRS) during whole liver transplantation is still controversial. Splenectomy (SP) permits its radical removal, at the price of a specific related morbidity. Left renal vein ligation (LRVL) performs a downstream ligation with potential renal repercussions. This study aimed to compare these techniques regarding portal revascularization and postoperative outcomes.
METHODS: From 1994 to 2012, 22 SPs and 7 LRVLs were performed for large SRS (>1 cm) management.
RESULTS: There was no difference in operating times or transfusion rates. In both groups, efficient portal flow was initially obtained in all cases. After a median follow-up of 79 months, 2 patients in the SP group presented an altered portal flow owing to persistence of a not disconnected mesentericogonadic or splenorenal shunt. Postoperative morbidity, including infection and portal vein thrombosis, was not significantly different (32% vs 14%). SP allowed a faster correction of the thrombocytopenia. The LRVL group had a moderate and temporary impairment of renal function.
CONCLUSIONS: SP and LRVL represent 2 effective procedures to avoid vascular steal in the presence of SRS, but they require a patent portal vein. SP appears to be associated to specific but acceptable intraoperative morbidity, permits treatment of associated splenic artery aneurysm, and enables a faster correction of thrombocytopenia. However, the presence of a remote hilum SRS or another large portosystemic shunt represents a cause of failure of the procedure. LRVL is a safer and less demanding procedure that can suppress portal steal whatever the location of the SRS, but at the price of moderate renal morbidity.
METHODS: From 1994 to 2012, 22 SPs and 7 LRVLs were performed for large SRS (>1 cm) management.
RESULTS: There was no difference in operating times or transfusion rates. In both groups, efficient portal flow was initially obtained in all cases. After a median follow-up of 79 months, 2 patients in the SP group presented an altered portal flow owing to persistence of a not disconnected mesentericogonadic or splenorenal shunt. Postoperative morbidity, including infection and portal vein thrombosis, was not significantly different (32% vs 14%). SP allowed a faster correction of the thrombocytopenia. The LRVL group had a moderate and temporary impairment of renal function.
CONCLUSIONS: SP and LRVL represent 2 effective procedures to avoid vascular steal in the presence of SRS, but they require a patent portal vein. SP appears to be associated to specific but acceptable intraoperative morbidity, permits treatment of associated splenic artery aneurysm, and enables a faster correction of thrombocytopenia. However, the presence of a remote hilum SRS or another large portosystemic shunt represents a cause of failure of the procedure. LRVL is a safer and less demanding procedure that can suppress portal steal whatever the location of the SRS, but at the price of moderate renal morbidity.