Surgical portosystemic shunts in the era of TIPS and liver transplantation are still relevant

Radiological and Surgical Treatments of Portal Hypertension

Interventions for portal hypertension are continuously evolving and expanding beyond the realm of medical management. When complications such as varices and ascites persist despite conservative interventions, procedures including transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation, transvenous obliteration, portal vein recanalization, splenic artery embolization, surgical shunt creation, and devascularization are all potential interventions detailed in this article. Selection of the optimal procedure to address the underlying cause, treat symptoms, and, in some cases, bridge to liver transplantation depends on the specific etiology of portal hypertension and the patient's comorbidities.

Surgical Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The use of surgery in managing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding has rapidly diminished secondary to advances in our understanding of the pathologies that underlie upper GI bleeding, pharmaceutical treatments for peptic ulcer disease, and endoscopic procedures used to gain hemostasis. A surgeon must work collaboratively with gastroenterologist and interventional radiologist to determine when, and what kind of, surgery is appropriate for the patient with upper GI bleeding.

The Portosystemic Shunt for the Control of Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhotic Patients: Past and Present

Based on an experience of more than 50 years in the treatment of portal hypertension (PHT), the authors review and analyze the evolution of the surgical portocaval shunt (PCS). We would like to provide an insight into the past of PCS, in order to compare it with the current state of the treatment of PHT complications. As a landmark of the past, we shall present statistics of more than 500 cases of PHT operated between 1968 and 1983. From this group, 238 patients underwent surgical portocaval shunting during a fifteen-year period. The behavior of the portal hemodynamics following PCS was studied and the postoperative decrease in portal pressure (PP), as well as the residual PP, were recorded. The portal manometric determinations were made by electronic recordings using the Hellige device and direct intraoperative recordings through the catheterization of a ramus in the portal area. The results of PCS are superposable, in terms of hemodynamic efficiency, with those of the intrahepatic shunt (TIPS-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). The authors discuss the current place of PCS, in obvious decline in comparison with the situation 50 years ago. The current methods of controlling variceal bleeding represent obvious progress. PCS remains with very limited indications, in specific situations when the other therapeutic methods have failed or are not recommended.

Splenorenal shunt for reconstruction of the gastric and splenic venous drainage during pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of the portal venous confluence

BACKGROUND

Resection of the portal venous confluence is frequently necessary for radical resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer. However, ligation of the splenic vein can cause serious postoperative complications such as gastric/splenic venous congestion and left-sided portal hypertension. A splenorenal shunt (SRS) can maintain gastric and splenic venous drainage and mitigate these complications.

PURPOSE

This study describes the surgical technique, postoperative course, and surgical outcomes of SRS after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Ten patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy and SRS between September 2017 and April 2019 were evaluated. After resection an end-to-side anastomosis between the splenic vein and the left renal vein was performed. Postoperative shunt patency, splenic volume, and any SRS-related complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The rates of short- and long-term shunt patency were 100% and 60%, respectively. No procedure-associated complications were observed. No signs of left-sided portal hypertension, such as gastrointestinal bleeding or splenomegaly, and no gastric/splenic ischemia were observed in patients after SRS.

CONCLUSION

SRS is a safe and effective measure to mitigate gastric congestion and left-sided portal hypertension after pancreatoduodenectomy with compromised gastric venous drainage after resection of the portal venous confluence.

Current Indications and Long-Term Outcomes of Surgical Portosystemic Shunts in Adults

BACKGROUND

Surgical portosystemic shunts are rare. We reviewed indications, operative details, and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical portosystemic shunt procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of consecutive patients between 1997 and 2018 from a single institution. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between two groups: patients with portomesenteric venous thrombosis (PMVT) vs those with cirrhosis. Endpoints included 30-day mortality, shunt-related complications, patency, and survival.

RESULTS

There were 99 patients, 45 male and 54 female, with a mean age of 46 ± 18 years, enrolled in the study. There were 63 patients (63%) with PMVT and 36 patients (36%) with cirrhosis. Both groups had similar demographics, cardiovascular risk factors, and aneurysm extent, except for more diabetes among those with cirrhosis (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in procedural metrics and intra-procedure complications between groups, except that patients with PMVT underwent more non-selective shunts than those with cirrhosis (63% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). There were two 30-day deaths (2%), with no difference in mortality and MAEs between groups. On univariate analysis, cholangiopathy and PMVT were associated with graft thrombosis (HR = 9.22, 95% CI 1.22-70.27) while race, smoking, cardiac comorbidity, type of operative shunt, configuration of the shunt, and use of conduit were not (p > 0.05). Patients with PMVT had significantly lower 1-, 5-, and 10-year primary (77%, 71%, and 71% vs. 97%, p = 0.009) and secondary patency (88%, 76%, and 72% vs. 96%, p = 0.027) compared with those with cirrhosis. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 94%, 84%, and 61% for patients with PMVT compared with 88%, 58%, and 26% for those with cirrhosis (non-adjusted HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.84, p = 0.01, age-adjusted HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.09, p = 0.08). The survival of patients with PMVT without liver disease trended higher than those with liver disease; however, when adjusted for age, the survival gap narrowed, and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.19), survival being lowest for those with PMVT and liver disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical portosystemic shunts are safe and effective for symptom relief in selected patients with portal hypertension. The odds of graft thrombosis is 9 times higher in patients with PMVT. Overall survival is similar in patients with PMVT or cirrhosis.

Comparision between portosystemic shunts and endoscopic therapy for prevention of variceal re-bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Portosystemic shunts, including surgical portosystemic shunts and transjugular intra-hepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), may have benefit over endoscopic therapy (ET) for treatment of variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension; however, whether there being a survival benefit among them remains unclear. This study was to compare the effect of three above-mentioned therapies on the short-term and long-term survival in patient with cirrhosis.

Methods:

Using the terms “variceal hemorrhage or variceal bleeding or variceal re-bleeding” OR “esophageal and gastric varices” OR “portal hypertension” and “liver cirrhosis,” the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and the references of identified trials were searched for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language with full texts or abstracts (last search June 2017). Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random effects model by Review Manager. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for the assessment of the risk of bias.

Results:

Twenty-six publications comprising 28 RCTs were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 2845 patients: 496 (4 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or TIPS, 1244 (9 RCTs) underwent either surgical portosystemic shunts or ET, and 1105 (15 RCTs) underwent either TIPS or ET. There was no significant difference in overall mortality and 30-day or 6-week survival among three interventions. Compared with TIPS and ET, separately, surgical portosystemic shunts were both associated with a lower bleeding-related mortality (RR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01–0.32; P < 0.001; RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06–0.51, P < 0.005) and rate of variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10–0.51, P < 0.001; RR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.04–0.24, P < 0.001), without a significant difference in the rate of postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.25–1.00, P = 0.14; RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59–2.01, P = 0.78). TIPS showed a trend toward lower variceal re-bleeding (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.36–0.58, P < 0.001), but a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy than ET (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34–2.36, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The overall analysis revealed that there seem to be no short-term and long-term survival advantage, but surgical portosystemic shunts are with the lowest bleeding-related mortality among the three therapies. Surgical portosystemic shunts may be the most effective without an increased risk of hepatic encephalopathy and TIPS is superior to ET but at the cost of a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy. However, some of findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lower level of evidence and the existence of significant heterogeneity.

Surgical portosystemic shunts versus devascularisation procedures for prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis

BACKGROUND

Hepatosplenic schistosomiasis is an important cause of variceal bleeding in low-income countries. Randomised clinical trials have evaluated the outcomes of two categories of surgical interventions, shunts and devascularisation procedures, for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. The comparative overall benefits and harms of these two interventions are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of relevant associations for trials that met the inclusion criteria (date of search 11 January 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisation procedures for the prevention of variceal rebleeding in people with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data using methodological standards expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias according to domains and risk of random errors with GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two randomised clinical trials including 154 adult participants, aged between 18 years and 65 years, diagnosed with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis. One of the trials randomised participants to proximal splenorenal shunt versus distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy, and the other randomised participants to distal splenorenal shunt versus oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. In both trials the diagnosis of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis was made based on clinical and biochemical assessments. The trials were conducted in Brazil and Egypt. Both trials were at high risk of bias.We are uncertain as to whether surgical portosystemic shunts improved all-cause mortality compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy due to imprecision in the trials (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 9.92; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether serious adverse events differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 11.70; participants = 154; studies = 2). None of the trials reported on health-related quality of life. We are uncertain whether variceal rebleeding differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.23; participants = 154; studies = 2). We found evidence suggesting an increase in encephalopathy in the shunts group versus the devascularisation with splenectomy group (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.89; participants = 154; studies = 2). We are uncertain whether ascites and re-interventions differed between surgical portosystemic shunts and oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. We computed Trial Sequential Analysis for all outcomes, but the trial sequential monitoring boundaries could not be drawn because of insufficient sample size and events. We downgraded the overall certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the very low certainty of the available body of evidence and the low number of clinical trials, we could not determine an overall benefit or harm of surgical portosystemic shunts compared with oesophagogastric devascularisation with splenectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be designed with sufficient statistical power to assess the benefits and harms of surgical portosystemic shunts versus oesophagogastric devascularisations with or without splenectomy and with or without oesophageal transection.

Diagnostic and therapeutic features of small bowel involvement in portal hypertension

Enteropathy is a lesser known complication of portal hypertension and consists of different changes in the mucosal layer of the small bowel which lead to the appearance of vascular and inflammatory lesions. It can be an important co-factor in the development of anemia in the cirrhotic population, and nowadays an easy and non-invasive diagnosis can be made thanks to capsule endoscopy. However, it is rarely considered in the management of patients with portal hypertension. Some aspects such as pathogenesis or incidence remain unclear and no specific recommendations are included in the guidelines regarding diagnosis or treatment. A review of the available literature was performed with regards to the most relevant aspects of this entity.

One step minilaparotomy-assisted transmesenteric portal vein recanalization combined with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement: A novel surgical proposal in pediatrics

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement is a standard procedure for the treatment of portal hypertension complications. When this conventional approach is not feasible, alternative procedures for systemic diversion of portal blood have been proposed. A one-step interventional approach, combining minilaparotomy-assisted transmesenteric (MAT) antegrade portal recanalization and TIPS, is described in an adolescent with recurrent esophageal varice bleeding and portal cavernoma (PC). A 16-year-old girl was admitted to our Unit because of repeated bleeding episodes over a short period of time due to esophageal varices in the context of a PC. A portal vein recanalization through an ileocolic vein isolation with the MAT approach followed by TIPS during the same session was performed. In the case of failed portal recanalization, this approach, would also be useful for varice endovascular embolization. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. Treatment consisting of propanolol, enoxaparin and a proton pump inhibitor was prescribed after the procedure. One month post-op, contrast enhanced computed tomography confirmed the patency of the portal and intrahepatic stent grafts. No residual peritoneal fluid was detected nor opacification of the large varices. Endoscopy showed good improvement of the varices. Doppler ultrasound confirmed the accelerated flow in the portal stent and hepatopetal flow inside the intrahepatic portal branches. Three months post-op, TIPS maintained its hourglass shape despite a slight expansion. Portal hypertension and life threatening conditions related to PC would benefit from one-step portal recanalization. MAT-TIPS is feasible and safe for the treatment of PC even in children. This minimally invasive procedure avoids or delays surgical treatment or re-transplantation when necessary in pediatric patients.

Minilaparotomy-Assisted Transmesenteric-Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: Comparison with Conventional Transjugular Approach

PURPOSE

This study was performed to compare the intrahepatic shunt function outcome and procedural complications of minilaparotomy-assisted transmesenteric (MAT)-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement with the conventional transjugular method.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients who had a MAT or conventional TIPS procedure over a 6-year period at our institute. The primary patency rate, fluoroscopy time, technical success, major procedure-related complications, and mortality data were compared between two treatment groups.

RESULTS

We included 49 patients with MAT-TIPS, and 63 with conventional TIPS, with an average follow-up of 21.43 months. The primary patency rates at 6 and 12 months were 82.9 and 66.7 % in the conventional TIPS group, and 81.0 and 76.5 % in the MAT-TIPS group (p = 1.000, and 0.529), respectively. There was no significant difference in technical success rate, post-procedure portosystemic pressure gradient, fluoroscopy time, and peri-procedural mortality rate between treatment groups. Major procedural-related complications were seen more frequently among MAT-TIPS patients (p = 0.012). In the MAT-TIPS group, 5 (10.2 %) patients developed post-procedure minilaparotomy, wound-related complications, and 5 (10.2 %) developed bacterial peritonitis; whereas, none of patients with conventional TIPS had either of these complications (p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

While both MAT-TIPS and conventional TIPS had similar shunt primary patency rate and technical success rate, the MAT approach was associated with a significantly higher rate of minilaparotomy-related wound complications or infectious complications. These complications maybe prevented by a change in post-procedure monitoring and therapy.

Portal Hypertension Over the Last 25 Years: Where Did It Go?

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension has seemingly vanished from surgery; this study was undertaken to determine where it has gone.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the Agency for Health Care Administration for 33,166,201 hospital inpatients in Florida for the periods 1988 to 1992, 1998 to 2002, and 2008 to 2012 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Admissions with a diagnosis of portal hypertension dramatically increased: 5,473 patients from 1988 to 1992, 7,366 patients from 1998 to 2002, and 36,554 patients from 2008 to 2012. Endoscopic treatment of esophageal varices also dramatically increased. The number of decompressive shunts placed nominally increased, but application of endoscopic therapy increased significantly faster than the application of decompressive shunts (p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients who underwent shunting dramatically and significantly decreased (p < 0.0001), and surgeons undertook proportionally fewer shunts (42% in 1992 to 4% in 2012; p < 0.0001). For patients with a diagnosis of portal hypertension, in-hospital mortality progressively decreased, from 9% in 1988 to 1992 to 3% in 2008 to 2012 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the state of Florida, over 25 years, there has been a 7-fold increase in the number of patients admitted with a diagnosis of portal hypertension, with a 65% reduction of in-hospital mortality. Application of endoscopic treatment of varices has increased dramatically. Decompressive shunts are applied to an ever-decreasing percentage of patients, and when applied, are now routinely undertaken by nonsurgeons. Therefore, portal hypertension has disappeared from the purview of surgery and has migrated toward the world of medical and endoscopic therapy, probably never to return.