Transsplenic Portal System Catheterization: Review of Current Indications and Techniques

Combined transhepatic and transsplenic recanalization of chronic splenic vein occlusion to treat left-sided portal hypertension: A cases report

RATIONALE

This report describes a unique case of a combination transhepatic and transsplenic recanalization of chronic splenic vein occlusion to treat left-sided portal hypertension (LSPH).

PATIENT CONCERNS

In this case report, we report a 49-year-old male who was admitted due to LSPH causing black stools for 2 days and vomiting blood for 1 hour.

DIAGNOSES

The patient has a history of multiple episodes of pancreatitis in the past. After admission, abdominal contrast-enhanced CT scan showed the appearance of pancreatitis, with extensive splenic vein occlusion and accompanied by gastric varicose veins, indicating the formation of LSPH.

INTERVENTION

The patient received treatment with a combination of splenic and hepatic splenic venoplasty.

OUTCOMES

Follow up for 1 year, CT and gastroscopy showed disappearance of gastric varices.

LESSONS

Splenic venoplasty is an effective method for treating LSPH. When it is difficult to pass through the occluded segment of the splenic vein through a single approach, percutaneous double approach splenic venoplasty can be attempted for treatment.

Endovascular management of sinistral portal hypertension-related variceal hemorrhage: a multicenter retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endovascular managements, including splenic vein recanalization (SVR), partial splenic embolization (PSE), and percutaneous transsplenic gastric varices embolization combined with PSE (PSE+GVE), for management of SPH-related variceal hemorrhage (VH).

METHODS

A total of 61 patients with SPH-related VH from three hospitals were enrolled and classified into three groups: the SVR group (Group 1, n=24), the PSE+GVE group (Group 2, n=17), and the PSE group (Group 3, n=20). Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The technical success rates for transhepatic and transsplenic SVR were 27.8% and 34.6%, respectively. No major complications were observed during any of the procedures. The median follow-up period was 53.2 months. The 2-year GI rebleeding rates for Group 1, 2, and 3 were 0%, 5.9%, and 35%, respectively. Groups 1 and 2 have a lower GI rebleeding rate (p = 0.002, p = 0.048, respectively) and better results of the degree of GV (p = 0.003, p = 0.044, respectively) compared to Group 3. No significant differences were found in 2-year GI rebleeding rates and the degree of GV between Group 1 and 2 (p = 0.415, p = 0.352, respectively).

CONCLUSION

SVR, PSE+GVE, and PSE seem safe and effective for management of SPH-related VH. SVR appears to be the superior treatment option. Transsplenic access may further increase the SVR success rate. PSE+GVE seems to have comparable outcomes in GV control and GI rebleeding rates compared to SVR, while superior to PSE.

Safety of Percutaneous Transmesenteric and Transsplenic Access for Portosystemic Shunt Creation in Patients with Portal Vein Obstruction: Single-Center Experience and Review of Literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety of ultrasound-guided percutaneous mesenteric vein access compared to transsplenic portal vein access for portosystemic shunt placement in patients with portal vein obstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients underwent portosystemic shunt creation through either a transsplenic (n = 4) or transmesenteric (n = 4) approach. The superior or inferior mesenteric vein was percutaneously accessed under ultrasound guidance using a 21G needle and a 4F sheath. Hemostasis at the mesenteric access site was achieved with manual compression. For transsplenic access, sheath sizes between 6 and 8F were used and tract embolization with gelfoam was performed.

RESULTS

Portosystemic shunt placement was successful in all patients. While there were no bleeding complications with transmesenteric access, hemorrhagic shock requiring splenic artery embolization occurred in one patient in which the transsplenic approach was used.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided mesenteric vein access seems feasible and a valid alternative to the transsplenic access in case of portal vein obstruction. Level of Evidence Level 4, case series.

Portal vein embolization failure: Current strategies and future perspectives to improve liver hypertrophy before major oncological liver resection

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently considered the standard of care to improve the volume of an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) and decrease the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). PHLF remains a significant limitation in performing major liver surgery and is the main cause of mortality after resection. The degree of hypertrophy obtained after PVE is variable and depends on multiple factors. Up to 20% of patients fail to undergo the planned surgery because of either an inadequate FRL growth or tumor progression after the PVE procedure (usually 6-8 wk are needed before surgery). The management of PVE failure is still debated, with a lack of consensus regarding the best clinical strategy. Different additional techniques have been proposed, such as sequential transarterial chemoembolization followed by PVE, segment 4 PVE, intra-portal administration of stem cells, dietary supplementation, and hepatic vein embolization. The aim of this review is to summarize the up-to-date strategies to overcome such difficult situations and discuss future perspectives on improving FRL hypertrophy.