Arviza P, Bombín A, Arrazola J, de Blas CS, Talarico EF, Bartolomé AMP, Gonzalez AV, Gonzalez LE, Rodriguez CS, Munoz MD, Sanchez LP, Sanudo JR, Maranillo E, Schneeberger S, Konschake M. Comparative anatomo-radiological study of intrahepatic venous vascularization in the Spain.
Ann Anat 2021;
237:151740. [PMID:
33895285 DOI:
10.1016/j.aanat.2021.151740]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Revised: 03/24/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Anatomic variations in the hepatic venous system are the least understood aspect of hepatic anatomy. The variations are diverse, and data are lacking with respect to the population of Spain and methods of detection. The objective was to examine morphological patterns of variations in hepatic venous vascularization using cadaveric dissections vs. radiological imaging, and to analyze the findings with respect to Spain and to published studies.
METHODS
Thirty-one livers were anatomically dissected and analyzed for their hepatic venous anatomy and then compared to the venous anatomy of livers examined in 216 CT scans from 119 men and 97 women, ranging between 27 and 89 years of age. Statistical analysis was done using the Chi squared and Fisher homogeneity tests.
RESULTS
The hepatic portal vein showed morphological variations in cadavers vs. CT of 67.3% vs. 67.6% (p-I), 29% vs. 12.2% (p-II), 0% vs. 14.6% (p-III), 0% vs. 14.6% (p-IV), 3.2% vs. 0.5% (p-V) and 6.5% vs. 1.9% (p-VI), respectively in cadavers vs. CT. Hepatic vein pattern variation were found in 64.5% vs. 50.7% (h-I), 32.2% vs. 31.5% (h-II), 0% vs. 2.3% (h-III), 0% vs. 4.7% (h-IV), respectively in dissections vs. CT). In Accessory Hepatic Veins the frequency in pattern variation was 64.5% vs. 18.8% (a-2.1), 29.0% vs. 8.0% (a-2.2), 58.1% vs. 11.3% (a-2.3), 9.7% vs. 0.9% (a-2.4), 67.7% vs. 16.9% (a-2.5), 9.7% vs. 4.2% (a-2.6) and 0% vs. 0.5% (a-2.7), respectively, in cadavers vs. CT. CT showed in 27.2% no accessory hepatic veins. Sex was not a factor influencing patterns of variation.
CONCLUSION
Anatomical variants of the hepatic portal vein, the hepatic vein and accessory hepatic veins are very diverse and show greater variability in the specimens compared to those detected with radiological images, finding a wider spectrum of variations as it allows the clinician to have a more precise definition of the vasculature. A higher precision in the definition of anatomical variations is warranted for surgical planning in liver resection and transplantation.
Collapse