Portal vein thrombosis after reconstruction in 270 consecutive patients with portal vein resections in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery

Thrombosis and anticoagulation after portal vein reconstruction during pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Portal vein (PV) resection and reconstruction, which includes the resection and reconstruction of the PV and superior mesenteric vein, enable surgical removal of borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Thrombosis of the reconstructed PV represents a major cause of early postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality. No universally accepted standard for anticoagulation exists. This study aimed to assess early and late thrombosis rates after PV reconstruction with special regard to the type of PV reconstruction and anticoagulation regimen and to comprehensively assess thrombotic events and their clinical effect in patients receiving pancreatic surgery with venous resection and reconstruction.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Studies reporting on PV resection and reconstruction providing data on thrombosis rates were included. The following parameters were assessed: study type, year of publication, number of patients, type/number of PV reconstruction, follow-up period, postoperative mortality, thrombosis rate of the reconstructed PV axis, intraoperative blood loss, and anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 2751 patients were included in the final analysis. Of note, 670 patients received tangential resection of the PV with venorrhaphy or patch repair, 1505 patients had segmental resection with end-to-end reconstruction, and 576 patients received reconstruction with an interposition graft/conduit. The pooled overall thrombosis rate was 15%. Reconstruction of tangential defects with either venorrhaphy or patch repair and end-to-end repair of segmental defects resulted in a thrombosis rate of 12%. Subgroup analysis according to the type of graft reconstruction revealed the highest occlusion rates of 55% in patients with allogeneic grafts, followed by up to 27% in patients with synthetic PV conduits. Autologous conduits had a thrombosis rate of 10%. Early thrombotic events were detected in 5% of patients after venorrhaphy/patch reconstruction and end-to-end reconstruction. Early events were most common in the allogeneic graft subgroup (22%), followed by synthetic conduits (15%). There were fewer early events in the autologous graft group (7%). Early PV thrombosis was associated with relevant mortality of up to 26%. Anticoagulation regimens varied between studies.

CONCLUSION

The overall thrombosis rate after PV resection is low. However, among the different reconstruction techniques, allogeneic interposition grafts/conduits had the highest thrombosis rates among the different types of reconstruction after PV resection. No specific anticoagulation strategy can be considered beneficial based on the existing literature.

A contemporary view on vascular resections and reconstruction during hepatectomies

Oncological hepatic surgery carries the possibility to perform vascular reconstructions for advanced tumours with vessel invasion since surgery often represents the only potentially curative approach for these tumours. An extended review was conducted in an attempt to understand and clarify the latest trends in hepatectomies with vascular resections. We searched bibliographic databases including PubMed, Scopus, references from bibliographies and Cochrane Library. Information and outcomes from worldwide clinical trials were collected from qualified institutions performing hepatectomies with vascular resection and reconstruction. Careful patient selection and thorough preoperative imaging remain crucial for correct and safe surgical planning. A literature analysis shows that vascular resections carry different indications in different diseases. Despite significant advances made in imaging techniques and technical skills, reports of hepatectomies with vascular resections are still associated with high postoperative morbidity and mortality. The trend of complex liver resection with vascular resection is constantly on the increase, but more profound knowledge as well as further trials are required. Recent technological developments in multiple fields could surely provide novel approaches and enhance a new era of digital imaging and intelligent hepatic surgery.

Comparison of patency rates and complications with or without antithrombotic therapy following portal vein stent placement after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Portal vein stent placement is used for portal vein stenosis. However, reports on postpancreatic surgery cases are rare. Whether antithrombotic therapy should be administered remains controversial. In this paper, the authors reviewed current data to evaluate the influence of antithrombosis on stent patency after pancreatic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared studies in which patients did or did not receive antithrombotic therapy after portal vein stent placement. The authors compared patency after stent placement and complication rate.

RESULTS

There were 22 ( n =207) studies in which patients received antithrombotic therapy and 8 ( n =61) in which patients did not receive therapy. Antithrombotic agents, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin, and warfarin, were used. The overall patency rates were similar between the groups (79.2% in the antithrombosis group vs. 88.0% in the nonantithrombosis group). Subgroup analyses included those for the etiology of stenosis, types of antithrombotic agents, acute or chronic stenosis, and causes of stent stenosis. None revealed a significant difference between the patency rates in the antithrombosis and nonantithrombosis groups. However, bleeding complications only occurred in patients who received antithrombotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant benefit of antithrombotic therapy after portal vein stent placement following pancreatic surgery. Antithrombotic therapy should be performed with caution because it may cause complications, such as bleeding.

Technical Strategy for Pancreatic Body Cancers: A Raison d'etre of Distal Pancreatectomy with Portal Resection

BACKGROUND

Advancements in multiagent chemotherapy have expanded the surgical indications for pancreatic cancer. Although pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with portal vein resection (PVR) has become widely adopted, distal pancreatectomy (DP) with PVR remains rarely performed because of its technical complexity. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of DP-PVR compared with PD-PVR for pancreatic body cancers, with a focus on PV complications and providing optimal reconstruction techniques when DP-PVR is necessary.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive pancreatic body cancer patients who underwent pancreatectomy with PVR between 2005 and 2020. An algorithm based on the anatomical relationship between the arteries and PV was used for optimal surgical selection.

RESULTS

Among 119 patients, 32 underwent DP-PVR and 87 underwent PD-PVR. Various reconstruction techniques were employed in DP-PVR cases, including patch reconstruction, graft interposition, and wedge resection. The majority of PD-PVR cases involved end-to-end anastomosis. The length of PVR was shorter in DP-PVR (25 vs. 40 mm; p < 0.001). Although Clavien-Dindo ≥3a was higher in DP-PVR (p = 0.002), inpatient mortality and R0 status were similar. Complete PV occlusion occurred more frequently in DP-PVR than in PD-PVR (21.9% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001). A cutoff value of 30 mm for PVR length was determined to be predictive of nonrecurrence-related PV occlusion after DP-PVR. The two groups did not differ significantly in recurrence or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

DP-PVR had higher occlusion and postoperative complication rates than PD-PVR. These findings support the proposed algorithm and emphasize the importance of meticulous surgical manipulation when DP-PVR is deemed necessary.

The rex shunt for left portal vein reconstruction during hepatectomy for malignancy using of rex-shunt in adults for oncoliver surgery

BACKGROUND

Immediate portal reperfusion is mandatory following hepatectomy combined with portal vein (PV) resection. This retrospective study analyzes the feasibility and the outcomes of the Rex shunt (RS) for reconstruction of the left portal vein (LPV) and reperfusion of the remnant left liver or lobe following hepatectomy for cancer combined with resection of the PV in adult patients.

METHODS

From 2018 to 2021, an RS was used in the above setting to achieve R0 resection or when the standard LPV reconstruction failed or was deemed technically impossible.

RESULTS

There were 6 male and 5 female patients (median age, 58 years) with perihilar cancer (5 cases) or miscellaneous cancers invading the PV (6 cases). A major hepatectomy was performed in 10/11 patients. The RS was indicated to achieve R0 resection or for technical reasons in 8 and 3 cases, respectively, and was feasible in all consecutive attempts with (10 cases) or without an interposed synthetic graft (1 case). Two fatal complications (PV thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and three non-severe complications occurred in four patients within 90 days of surgery. Two patients died of tumor recurrence with a patent RS at 13 and 29 months, and 7 were recurrence free with a patent shunt with a follow-up of 1 to 37 months (median, 15 months).

CONCLUSION

In case of remnant left liver or lobe following hepatectomy combined with resection of the PV, the RS may help to achieve R0 resection and is a valuable option to perform technically satisfying portal reperfusion of the remnant left liver or lobe.

Falciform ligament tubular graft for mesenteric-portal vein reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Portal vein resection and reconstruction in locally advanced pancreatic cancer represents a potentially curative treatment in selected patients without increasing surgical mortality. However, vascular reconstruction after segmental venous resection is challenging. The parietal peritoneum has emerged as a venous substitute but few reports include its use as a tubular graft. We report a retrospective series of portal vein reconstruction using a falciform ligament tubular graft during pancreaticoduodenectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Technical aspects and short-term morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy with falciform ligament tubular graft interposition were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 21 patients who used parietal peritoneum for venous substitution between 2015 and 2019, eight underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection and reconstruction using interposition of falciform ligament tubular graft. The mean duration of surgery and clamping time were 350 and 27 min, respectively. No perioperative blood transfusion was required. All the grafts were patent the day after surgery. No complication related to venous obstruction was detected during the hospital stay. Two patients had postoperative pancreatic fistula. No further intervention was needed. The 90-day mortality was null.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of interposition of falciform ligament tubular graft for portal venous reconstruction during pancreaticoduodenectomy seems to be a reliable, inexpensive, and safe procedure.

Venous Reconstruction During Pancreatectomy Using Polytetrafluoroethylene Grafts: A Single-Center Experience with Standardized Perioperative Management

BACKGROUND

Although primary end-to-end anastomosis is preferred for portal vein-superior mesenteric vein (PV-SMV) reconstruction, interposition graft use may be required in some situations. We investigated the efficacy of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts when used during pancreatectomy in this context.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, 19 patients who underwent pancreatectomy requiring PV-SMV reconstruction using ringed PTFE grafts were entered prospectively into a clinical database (NCT02871336, CNIL No. Sy50955016U). Unfractionated heparin was used during the first 24 h postoperatively. The administration of low-molecular-weight heparin was initiated twice a day (two injections of 1 mg/kg enoxaparin) on postoperative day 2 and was continued until the first clinical follow-up. Patency was assessed by CT scan before home discharge. Patients were switched to antiplatelet therapy (75 mg of aspirin-based drug Kardegic^®) without a deadline.

RESULTS

Pancreatoduodenectomy was the most commonly performed procedure (15 patients, 79%), and pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma was the predominant etiology (17 patients, 89%). The median PTFE graft diameter and length were 10 mm and 8 cm, respectively. The median clamping time was 25 min. The overall severe morbidity and 90-day mortality values were 21% and 10%, respectively. None of the patients experienced anticoagulation-related morbidity or PTFE graft-related infection. The 6-month PTFE graft patency rate was 68%. Patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy showed a higher late thrombosis rate than those who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy (50% vs. 8%, p = 0.049). The median long-term PTFE graft patency duration was 37 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PTFE reconstruction can be safely performed with simple perioperative management in cases requiring interposition graft use.

Narrowing of the remnant portal vein diameter and decreased portal vein angle are risk factors for portal vein thrombosis after perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence, risk factors, management options, and outcomes of portal vein thrombosis following major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 177 perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients who (1) underwent major hepatectomy and (2) underwent investigating the portal vein morphology, which was measured by rotating the reconstructed three-dimensional images after facilitating bone removal using Aquarius iNtuition workstation between 2002 and 2018, were included. Risk factors were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Six patients developed portal vein thrombosis (3.4%) within a median time of 6.5 (range 0-22) days. Portal vein and hepatic artery resection were performed in 30% and 6% patients, respectively. A significant difference in the probability of the occurrence of portal vein thrombosis (PV) within 30 days was found among patients with portal vein resection, a postoperative portal vein angle < 100°, remnant portal vein diameter < 5.77 mm, main portal vein diameter > 13.4 mm, and blood loss (log-rank test, p = 0.003, p = 0.06, p < 0.0001, p = 0.01, and p = 0.03, respectively). Decreasing the portal vein angle and narrowing of the remnant PV diameter remained significant predictors on multivariate analysis (p = 0.027 and 0.002, respectively). Reoperation with thrombectomy was performed in four patients, and the other two patients were successfully treated with anticoagulants. All six patients subsequently recovered and were discharged between 25 and 70 days postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Narrowing of the remnant portal vein diameter and a decreased portal vein angle after major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma are significant independent risk factors for postoperative portal vein thrombosis.