Total shunting and elective management of variceal bleeding

Portale Hypertension

Während die Pathologie, die zur portalen Hypertension führt, im prähepatischen, hepatischen und posthepatischen venösen Gefäßbett liegen kann, machen die intrahepatischen Erkrankungen mit Abstand den Großteil aus. In unseren Breitengraden ist es die durch Alkoholabusus bedingte ethyltoxische Leberzirrhose, weltweit die durch Infektionen (HCV, HBV) bedingten Zirrhosen. Die chronische Hepatitis C mit ihren Komplikationen (Leberzellversagen, portale Hypertension und hepatozelluläres Karzinom) wird in den kommenden Jahren trotz moderner Therapieverfahren noch an Bedeutung gewinnen.

Surgical shunt versus TIPS for treatment of variceal hemorrhage in the current era of liver and multivisceral transplantation

Over the last 3 decades, management of acute variceal bleeding and measures to prevent recurrent episodes has evolved due to the introduction of new therapeutic modalities including innovative surgical and minimally invasive shunt procedures. Such an evolution has been compounded by the parallel progress that has been achieved in organ transplantation. This article focuses primarily on the commonly used surgical and radiologic shunt procedures. Liver and multivisceral transplantation are also briefly discussed as important parts of the algorithmic management of these complex patients, particularly those with hepatic decompensation and portomesenteric venous thrombosis.

New trends in surgical treatment for portal hypertension

A number of surgical procedures have been developed to manage esophageal varices. Broadly, these can be classified as shunting and non-shunting procedures. While total shunt effectively reduces the incidence of variceal bleeding, it is associated with a high risk of hepatic encephalopathy. The distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS), a selective shunt, was developed by Warren in 1967 to preserve portal blood flow through the liver while lowering variceal pressure. The hope was that both bleeding and hyperammonemia would be prevented. The DSRS effectively prevents rebleeding, but still carries a risk of hyperammonemia. We improved the DSRS procedure by additionally performing splenopancreatic disconnection (SPD, i.e. skeletonization of the splenic vein from the pancreas to its bifurcation at the splenic hilum) and gastric transection (GT, i.e. transection and anastomosis of the upper stomach with an autosuture instrument). An alternative to shunting was developed by Sugiura and Futagawa in 1973. Esophageal transection (ET) divides and reanastomoses the distal esophagus and devascularizes the distal esophagus and proximal stomach; splenectomy, selective vagotomy, and pyloroplasty are performed concomitantly. DSRS was more effective than ET in preventing recurrence of esophageal varices, but was associated with a higher incidence of hyperammonemia. The incidence of hyperammonemia in patients who underwent DSRS with SPD plus GT was significantly lower than that in patients who underwent DSRS alone or those who underwent DSRS with SPD. In conclusion, there are various surgical treatments for esophagogastric varices. Distal splenorenal shunt with SPD plus GT is considered an adequate treatment for patients with esophagogastric varices.

Therapeutic options for endoscopic haemostatic failures: the place of the surgeon and radiologist in gastrointestinal tract bleeding

The management of gastrointestinal tract bleeding has changed dramatically due to improvements of interventional endoscopy and radiology. The place of the radiologist has become very important, not only for diagnostic modalities but also for therapeutic embolisation to control the bleeding. The place of the surgeon is limited to the situation where both these less invasive techniques have failed to stop the bleeding. For arterial bleeding in the whole GI tract, angiography with subsequent embolisation is performed after failed endoscopy. For variceal bleeding the preferred treatment after endoscopic failure is transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunting (TIPS). Surgery is only needed in exceptional cases. Embolisation can be performed successfully without compromising the bowel vascularisation or inducing ischaemia, whereas surgery has a high rate of complications and mortality. For treatment of GI bleeding a multidisciplinary team including a gastroenterologist, radiologist and surgeon is mandatory.

Surgery versus transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic shunt in the treatment of severe variceal bleeding

The management of patients who have portal hypertension has changed dramatically over the last 2 decades. Pharmacologic therapy benefits the patient by reducing the risk for an initial bleed, improving the management of an acute bleed, and in reducing the risk for a rebleed. Endoscopic management has improved progressively along with endoscopic technology. For those 20% of patients that continues to have persistent high-risks varices or rebleed through first-line therapy, decompression does remain an option. The three options to decompression are liver transplant, a surgical shunt, or a transjugular intrahepatic portal systemic shunt (TIPS). This article focuses on the relative roles of these options with a particular emphasis on the current available data comparing surgical shunt with TIPS.

Liver transplantation as ultimate tool to treat portal hypertension

Portal hypertension is a complication of liver cirrhosis that may itself cause complications such as variceal bleeding, ascites and hepatorenal syndrome. There are several options for symptomatic treatment including drug therapy, endoscopy, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and various surgical procedures, notably liver transplantation, the only causal treatment. The indication for liver transplantation has to be defined carefully. Progression of the primary disease, evaluation of comorbidity and overall prognosis have to be considered. Conservative symptomatic treatment is used for bridging purposes until liver transplantation can be provided to cure portal hypertension and the underlying primary disease. Careful timing of the transplantation is necessary as well as reorganization of the waiting lists by introducing new priority systems as the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in order to reduce mortality. Furthermore, living donor liver transplantation and split liver transplantation are methods to enlarge the donor pool, and thus accessibility of transplantation to a greater number of patients. This review evaluates the indication of liver transplantation in the treatment of portal hypertension.

Salvage therapies for refractory variceal hemorrhage

Refractory variceal bleeding is defined as bleeding that continues through adequate pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy. In patients with end-stage liver disease, the only option for long-term salvage is liver transplantation. In patients with well-preserved liver function (Child's class A and class B-7), other salvage options such as surgical shunt, TIPS, and devascularization procedures can achieve good outcome. The long-term survival depends on the underlying liver disease, rather than on the variceal bleeding per se.

Surgical treatment of portal hypertension

The surgical treatment of portal hypertension has laxed and waned over the past century. Decompressive shunts for variceal bleeding hit their peak in the 1970s, but dissatisfaction with encephalopathy and liver failure led to further developments with selective shunts and devascularization procedures in the 1970s and early 1980s. Liver transplant is the major operative intervention currently in use and of advantage to patients with portal hypertension. The role of the surgeon is as part of the team involved in the full evaluation of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension with its complications. The current repertoire of surgical options includes decompressive shunts, either total, partial or selective, devascularization procedures and liver transplantation. These options must be fitted into the overall management schema of pharmacologic and endoscopic therapy as the first-line approaches to managing these patients.

Surgery in portal hypertension

The role of surgery in portal hypertension remains a topic of debate. For the past 100 years, various surgical procedures have been used to treat variceal bleeding, refractory ascites, and end-stage liver disease. The past decade has seen significant advances in pharmacotherapy, endoscopy, interventional radiology, and surgery for the management of patients with portal hypertension. Liver transplantation has come of age in the 1990s and is now an accepted therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. The wide array of management options can complicate the decision making process and defines the need to evaluate these patients fully. Factors such as the aetiology and extent of liver disease, response to prior medical, endoscopic, and other interventional treatments, and possibility of future liver transplantation must be considered. This manuscript will review the history of surgical treatments of portal hypertension, describe the surgical procedures with their advantages and disadvantages, and evaluate their role in the elective and emergent settings.

The role of surgery in the treatment of portal hypertension

The role of surgery in the treatment of portal hypertension continues to evolve. Pharmacologic and endoscopic therapies are the primary treatment modalities for the prophylaxis and treatment of variceal bleeding and ascites. Failure of these therapies is the indication for invasive intervention such as TIPS, surgical shunt, or devascularization. Distal splenoreal shunting provides selective variceal decompression with less encephalopathy and accelerated hepatic failure than portal decompression. Liver transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients with poor hepatic function.