World journal of hepatology · 2026
Impact of clinically significant portal hypertension on posthepatectomy liver failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ruan Ming-Hao, Ye Fei-Yang, Ma Jin-Ni, Qian Jin, Zou Ming-Hao, Zhou Wen-Xuan, Sheng Jie, Guo Xin-Gang, Wei Dong, Zhang Cheng-Jing, Liu Hui, Liu Fu-Chen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The health challenges of partial hepatectomy in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) have been a subject of study for decades. No meta-analysis has systematically evaluated the relationship between CSPH and posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), despite its potential role as a critical factor in surgical decision-making. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the incidence of PHLF in patients with and without CSPH.
AIM: To include more recent studies and focus on short-term postoperative outcomes, particularly the association between CSPH and PHLF. Additionally, stratified analyses were also performed according to CSPH and PHLF assessment methods, study design, study period, surgical technique, and underlying liver diseases.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and Cochrane databases using combinations of the following terms: ("portal hypertension" OR "hypertension, portal" OR "portal hypertensions") AND ("hepatectomy" OR "hepatectomies" OR "liver resection") AND ("liver failure" OR "hepatic failure" OR "liver decompensation"). Studies published from January 1996 to April 2025, 21 published studies were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality assessment was performed independently by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and compared using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ 2 test, and the degree of inconsistency was measured using I 2. A P value < 0.05 or I 2 > 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the findings and to identify potential sources of bias.
RESULTS: A total of 6981 patients (1453 patients with CSPH and 5529 patients without CSPH) were finally included in this study. Compared with patients without CSPH, the incidences of PHLF increased in patients with CSPH (OR = 3.14; 95%CI: 2.45-4.02; P < 0.001). Subsequent subgroup analysis suggested that the diagnostic methods for CSPH is a potential interfering factor in PHLF, the OR was maximal in hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement groups (OR = 15.61; 95%CI: 2.11-115.35; P = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: The presence of CSPH should be considered as a significant risk factor, it still should be taken into account seriously prior to surgery and needs strict perioperative management. Meanwhile, different methods of diagnosing CSPH could influence PHLF.
AIM: To include more recent studies and focus on short-term postoperative outcomes, particularly the association between CSPH and PHLF. Additionally, stratified analyses were also performed according to CSPH and PHLF assessment methods, study design, study period, surgical technique, and underlying liver diseases.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and Cochrane databases using combinations of the following terms: ("portal hypertension" OR "hypertension, portal" OR "portal hypertensions") AND ("hepatectomy" OR "hepatectomies" OR "liver resection") AND ("liver failure" OR "hepatic failure" OR "liver decompensation"). Studies published from January 1996 to April 2025, 21 published studies were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality assessment was performed independently by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and compared using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ 2 test, and the degree of inconsistency was measured using I 2. A P value < 0.05 or I 2 > 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the findings and to identify potential sources of bias.
RESULTS: A total of 6981 patients (1453 patients with CSPH and 5529 patients without CSPH) were finally included in this study. Compared with patients without CSPH, the incidences of PHLF increased in patients with CSPH (OR = 3.14; 95%CI: 2.45-4.02; P < 0.001). Subsequent subgroup analysis suggested that the diagnostic methods for CSPH is a potential interfering factor in PHLF, the OR was maximal in hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement groups (OR = 15.61; 95%CI: 2.11-115.35; P = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: The presence of CSPH should be considered as a significant risk factor, it still should be taken into account seriously prior to surgery and needs strict perioperative management. Meanwhile, different methods of diagnosing CSPH could influence PHLF.