Delayed gastric perforation following transarterial chemoembolization: Case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is widely employed to control acute bleeding in ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC). Ischemia leading to perforation of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) after TACE is a rare complication. We report a patient who presented with rHCC and who suffered gastric perforation post-TACE.

CASE REPORT

A 70-year-old woman presented with rHCC. Emergency TACE was undertaken to control bleeding, and was successful. The patient was discharged 5 days post TACE. Two weeks after TACE, she presented with acute abdominal pain. Computed tomography of the abdomen showed perforation at the lesser curvature of the stomach. The angiogram from TACE was reviewed: the small vessels from an accessory branch of the left gastric artery originating from the left hepatic artery that had been embolized were likely responsible for gastric ischemia and subsequent perforation. The patient underwent operation with simple closure and omental patch repair. Postoperative gastric leak was not observed. Unfortunately, the patient died due to severe decompensated liver disease ∼4 weeks after TACE.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) perforation after TACE is a rare complication. We suspected that perforation of the lesser curve of the stomach was secondary to ischemia due to non-target embolization to the accessory branch of the left gastric artery from the left hepatic artery, combined with stress and hemodynamic instability from rHCC.

CONCLUSIONS

rHCC is a life-threatening condition. Variation in vascular structures must be clarified carefully. Significant adverse events in the GIT post-TACE are rare, but high-risk patients must be cautiously monitored.

Multiple variations in the course and motor branching pattern of the musculocutaneous nerve with unusual communication with the median nerve

Anatomic variations in course and motor branching pattern of the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) with unusual communication with the median nerve were determined on the left arm of a 62-year-old formalin fixed male cadaver. The MCN did not pierce the coracobrachialis muscle. It provided 4 primary motor branches. The first branch emerged 1.5 cm inferior to the coracoid process to innervate the coracobrachialis muscle. The second branch emerged 8 cm inferior to the coracoid process to innervate the biceps brachii muscle. The third branch to brachialis muscle emerged 13.9 cm inferior to the coracoid process. The last branch to the common belly of biceps brachii muscle emerged 19.6 cm inferior to the coracoid process. Two communications with the median nerve were observed. The proximal thick communicating branch had the direction from the MCN to the median nerve while the distal one was a small nerve bundle with a direction from the median nerve to the MCN. The present report provided evidence of multiple variations in one MCN which had not been reported previously. Anatomic variation in this case has clinical implications, considering that injury of the MCN in the upper part of arm would cause unexpected paralysis of flexor muscles of forearm and thenar muscle due to communications between this and median nerve.