Percutaneous transhepatic stent placement in the management of portal venous stenosis after curative surgery for pancreatic and biliary neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W446-W450. [PMID: 21427310 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.10.5274]

Long-Term Outcomes of Angioplasty and Stent Placement for Portomesenteric Vein Obstruction following Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of endovascular treatment for postoperative portomesenteric vein (PMV) obstruction and identify prognostic factors influencing patency rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included patients who underwent endovascular intervention for PMV stenosis or occlusion after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery between January 2009 and December 2020. Patient characteristics, technical outcomes, and long-term patency rates were evaluated. In total, 116 patients underwent PMV intervention after liver transplantation (n = 66, 56.9%), hepatectomy (n = 21, 18.1%), or pancreatectomy (n = 29, 25%). Interventions included balloon angioplasty alone (n = 7, 6%) or stent placement (n = 106, 91.4%), performed at a median of 125 days (interquartile range, 8.5-436.5 days) after surgery.

RESULTS

The technical success rate of the PMV intervention was 95.7%. Patency rates varied significantly across the surgical groups, with liver transplantation showing superior outcomes compared with hepatectomy and pancreatectomy (5-year primary patency rates: 94.4%, 65.4%, and 64.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed variceal bleeding (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 8.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56-46.1; P = .013), stent length (sHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .008), cumulative time (sHR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.65; P = .002), and tumor etiology (sHR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.02-36.99; P = .047) as independent prognostic factors for patency loss.

CONCLUSIONS

High technical success rates were achieved with the PMV interventions, with varying long-term patency rates. This study highlights the significance of the initial type of hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery and clinical variables such as variceal bleeding, stent length, and tumor etiology in influencing PMV stenosis outcomes.

Improvement of Hypoalbuminemia and Hepatic Reserve after Stent Placement for Postsurgical Portal Vein Stenosis

PURPOSE

To investigate the change in serum albumin (Alb) levels and hepatic reserve scores before and after portal vein stent placement (PVS) for postsurgical portal vein (PV) stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent PVS after abdominal surgery between 2007 and 2021 was analyzed. Patients' age, sex, and PVS technical success (defined by PV patency at final portography) were evaluated. Alb, prothrombin time-international ratio (PT-INR), total bilirubin (Tbili), platelet (Plt) counts, Child-Pugh scores (CPS), and Alb-bilirubin (ALBI) scores/grades before and 1 month after PVS were compared. Normally distributed variables were summarized as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with paired t-tests. Skewed variables were summarized as median (interquartile range) and compared with the signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age, 61 years [SD ± 10]; female, 44%) were included. Technical success of PVS was achieved in all. Comparison was conducted for 28 PVS sessions: the Alb levels increased from 3.1 g/dL (SD ± 0.6) to 3.5 g/dL (SD ± 0.5) (P = .006), with greatest change in patients with pre-PVS Alb levels of ≤2.9 g/dL (2.6 g/dL ± 0.3 to 3.3 g/dL ± 0.4, P < .001). Improvements in CPS (P = .026), ALBI score (P = .002), and ALBI grades (P = .026) were observed. PT-INR elongated (1.2 [1.1-1.3] to 1.3 [1.2-1.6], P = .002), mainly because of patients receiving post-PVS warfarin (P = .005 and P = .20 for with and without warfarin, respectively). No significant changes were observed for Tbili (P = .40) and Plt counts (P = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements of liver synthetic function represented by serum Alb levels and in hepatic reserve scores were observed after PVS, particularly in patients with pre-PVS hypoalbuminemia.

Percutaneous Transhepatic Venous Embolization and Portal Vein Stenting for Ectopic Variceal Bleeding at Choledochojejunostomy After Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Portal Vein Stenosis: A Case Report

Ectopic varices can result from portal vein stenosis following pancreaticoduodenectomy with concomitant portal vein resection reconstruction, and they can cause gastrointestinal bleeding. Although they can sometimes be fatal, various treatments have been reported. This report describes a case in which a percutaneous transhepatic approach was used to simultaneously perform variceal embolization and portal vein stenting in which a favorable outcome was achieved. The patient was a 77-year-old woman who had undergone subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy and portal vein combined resection and reconstruction for stage IIA pancreatic cancer. Although postoperative portal vein stenosis was observed, the patient was followed up because the collateral blood flow was well developed, maintaining intrahepatic blood flow. About 18 months after surgery, the day before a routine outpatient visit, she noticed melena, and a blood test performed at the time of the outpatient visit revealed anemia. An emergency contrast-enhanced computed tomography and an emergency enteroscopy revealed ectopic varices around the elevated jejunum at the choledochojejunostomy, and bleeding from the same site was suspected. Since the patient was suspected to be suffering from portal hypertension, we planned to embolize the varices for bleeding and to place a portal stent to treat portal hypertension. Since the patient had undergone mesh placement for an incisional hernia approximately one year postoperatively, a percutaneous transhepatic route was selected, and the patient was approached via the right portal vein route. The varices were embolized with coils and histoacrylate, and a stent was placed in the stenotic portal vein. The portal vein pressure was measured before and after the procedure to confirm its reduction, and the procedure was completed without complications. The patient was discharged from the hospital seven days after the procedure with no problems and is currently under outpatient follow-up with no varice recurrence. Although the optimal treatment for ectopic varices has not been established, portal vein stenting and variceal embolization via a percutaneous transhepatic approach were effective.

Embolization with or without portal vein stenting for bleeding ectopic jejunal varices in hepatopetal portal collaterals due to extrahepatic portal vein occlusion or stenosis after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of embolization with or without portal vein stenting for bleeding ectopic jejunal varices in the hepatopetal portal collateral due to extrahepatic portal vein occlusion or stenosis after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included consecutive patients who underwent embolization for bleeding ectopic jejunal varices in the hepatopetal collateral due to extrahepatic portal vein occlusion or stenosis after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery between September 2012 and December 2020. The safety, technical and clinical success rates (no re-bleeding within 1 month) and re-bleeding-free survival after the first therapy and overall survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Fourteen sessions in 11 patients were included. Four patients (7 sessions) underwent variceal embolization only, and the remaining seven patients (7 sessions) underwent portal vein stenting and variceal embolization. Technical success was achieved in all 14 sessions (100%). Clinical success was achieved in 13 of 14 sessions (92.9%). No treatment-related serious complications including liver failure were observed. One-year and 2-year re-bleeding-free survival rate after the first endovascular therapy in all 11 patients was 90.9 and 60.6%, respectively. Two patients who experienced re-bleeding had repeat embolization treatment. There was no significant difference in re-bleeding-free survival after endovascular therapy between the combination with stenting and embolization group and the embolization-only group (p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Embolization with or without portal vein stenting of bleeding ectopic jejunal varices in the hepatopetal portal collateral due to extrahepatic portal vein occlusion or stenosis after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery can be considered a safe, effective, and repeatable therapy for long-term hemostasis of uncontrollable bleeding.

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.

Endovascular resolution of post-surgical complications in the portal vein: Report of two cases

Stenosis of the portal vein is one of the main complications after hepatobiliar and pancreatic surgery, with a reported incidence of 19.6% after pancreaticoduodenectomy and 3% after liver transplant. It is associated with the intraoperative resection of the portal vein, local recurrence of the primary tumor and radiotherapy. The portal lesion secondary to bile drainage catheter insertion is extremely rare or unusual, with few cases described in the literature. This article describes 2 cases: the first of a male patients 49 years old post-operative to liver transplant with partial portal thrombosis and stenosis of the mesoportal joint, and the second a female patient 50 years old with history of cholecystectomy, exploration of the bile duct and placement of Kehr "T" tube with secondary portal lesion. The 2 cases were successfully treated through minimally invasive procedures by an interventionist radiologist.

Cross-sectional imaging after pancreatic surgery: The dialogue between the radiologist and the surgeon

Pancreatic surgery is nowadays considered one of the most complex surgical approaches and not unscathed from complications. After the surgical procedure, cross-sectional imaging is considered the non-invasive reference standard to detect early and late compilations, and consequently to address patients to the best management possible. Contras-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) should be considered the most important and useful imaging technique to evaluate the surgical site. Thanks to its speed, contrast, and spatial resolution, it can help reach the final diagnosis with high accuracy. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered as a second-line imaging approach, especially for the evaluation of biliary findings and late complications. In both cases, the radiologist should be aware of protocols and what to look at, to create a robust dialogue with the surgeon and outline a fitted treatment for each patient.

Percutaneous transhepatic stenting for acute superior mesenteric vein stenosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy with portal vein reconstruction: A case report

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transhepatic stent placement has become a common strategy for the postoperative treatment of portal vein (PV)/superior mesenteric veins (SMV) stenosis/occlusion. It has been widely used after liver transplantation surgery; however, reports on stent placement for acute PV/SMV stenosis after pancreatic surgery within postoperative 3 d are rare.

CASE SUMMARY

Herein, we reported a case of intestinal edema and SMV stenosis 2 d after pancreatic surgery. The patient was successfully treated using stent grafts. Although the stenosis resolved after stent placement, complications, including bleeding, pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, and infection, made the treatment highly challenging. The use of anticoagulants was adjusted multiple times to prevent venous thromboembolism and the risk of bleeding. After careful treatment, the patient stabilized, and stent placement effectively managed postoperative PV/SMV stenosis.

CONCLUSION

Stent placement is effective and feasible for treating acute PV/SMV stenosis after pancreatic surgery even within postoperative 3 d.

Portal vein stenting in recurrent or locally advanced peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Recurrent or locally advanced peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) usually involves the portal vein (PV) leading to significant stenosis. With disease progression, clinical symptoms such as ascites, bleeding, and hepatic insufficiency are usually observed. Little is know about the benefit of PV stenting in relieving the symptoms associated to portal hypertension and allowing anticancer therapies. The aim of this study is to review our experience in PV stenting for PHCC patients.

METHODS

From 2014 to 2022, data from PHCC patients underwent PV stenting at Verona University Hospital, Italy, were reviewed. The indications were: gastrointestinal bleeding from esophagus-gastric varices, ascites not responsive to medical therapy, severe thrombocytopenia, liver insufficiency (hepatic jaundice, coagulopathy, and/or hyperammoniemia), or asymptomatic high-grade PV stenosis. Cavernous transformation and intrahepatic thrombosis in both sides of the liver were considered contraindication. Systematic anticoagulation therapy was not administered.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all 16 (100 %) patients. The improvement of clinical symptoms were observed in 12 (75 %) patients. Anticancer therapy was administrated in 11 (69 %) patients. 2 (13 %) complications were observed: 1 biliary injury and 1 recurrent cholangitis that required a percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage placement. Stent occlusion for tumor progression occurred in 1 patient and a re-stenting procedure was successfully performed. No case of thrombotic stent occlusion was observed during follow up. The 1-year stent patency was 86 % and the median patency period was 8 months (IQR, 4-12).

CONCLUSION

PV stenting is a feasible and safe palliative treatment that improves clinical condition, allow anticancer therapies, and provide a better quality of life.

Modified Appleby procedure for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma: A primer for the radiologist

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most prevalent pancreatic neoplasm accounting for more than 90% of pancreatic malignancies. Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy remains the only available curative strategy for patients with PDAC. Despite improvements in both chemotherapy regimen and surgical care, body/neck PDAC still conveys a poor prognosis because of the vicinity of major vascular structures, including celiac trunk, which favors insidious disease spread at the time of diagnosis. Body/neck PDAC involving the celiac trunk is considered locally advanced PDAC in most guidelines and therefore not eligible for upfront resection. However, a more aggressive surgical approach (i.e., distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy and en-bloc celiac trunk resection [DP-CAR]) was recently proposed to offer hope for cure in selected patients with locally advanced body/neck PDAC responsive to induction therapy at the cost of higher morbidity. The so-called "modified Appleby procedure" is highly demanding and requires optimal preoperative staging as well as appropriate patient preparation for surgery (i.e., preoperative arterial embolization). Herein, we review current evidence regarding DP-CAR indications and outcomes as well as the critical role of diagnostic and interventional radiology in patient preparation before DP-CAR, and early identification and management of DP-CAR complications.

Transsplenic tract closure after transsplenic portalvenous access using gelfoam-based tract plugging

BACKGROUND

To assess the feasibility and safety of a gelfoam torpedo plugging technique for embolization of the transsplenic access channel in adult patients following transvenous portal vein interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 09/2016 and 08/2021, an ultrasound guided transsplenic portalvenous access (TSPVA) was established in twenty-four adult patients with a 21-G needle and 4-F microsheath under ultrasound guidance. Afterwards, sheaths ranging from 4-F to 8-F were inserted as needed for the procedure. Following portal vein intervention, the splenic access tract was embolized with a gelfoam-based tract plugging (GFTP) technique. TSPVA and GFTP were performed twice in two patients. Patients' pre-interventional and procedural characteristics were analyzed to assess the feasibility and safety of the plugging technique according Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) classification system. Values are given as median (minimum;maximum). Subgroup analysis of intercostal vs. subcostal puncture site for TSPVA was performed using the two-sided Mann-Whitney-U test or Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The study population's age was 56 (29;71) years and 54% were female patients. Primary liver disease was predominantly liver cirrhosis with 62% of the patients. Pre-interventional model for end-stage liver disease score was 9 (6;25), international normalized ratio was 1.15 (0.86;1.51), activated partial thromboplastin time was 33s (26s;52s) and platelet count was 88.000/µL (31.000;273.000/µL). Ascites was present in 76% of the cases. Craniocaudal spleen diameter was 17cm (10cm;25cm). Indication for TSPVA was assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement in 16 cases and revision in two cases, portal vein stent placement in five cases and variceal embolization in three cases. TSPVA was successfully established in all interventions; interventional success rate was 85% (22/26). The splenic access time was 33min (10min;133min) and the total procedure time was 208min (110min;429min). Splenic access was performed with a subcostal route in 11 interventions and with an intercostal route in 15 interventions. Final sheath size was 4-F in 17 cases, 5-F in three cases, 6-F in five cases, 7-F in two cases and 8-F in one case. A median of two gelfoam cubes was used for GFTP. TSPVA- and GFTP-related complications occurred in 4 of 26 interventions (15%) with a subcapsular hematoma of the spleen in two patients (CIRSE grade 1), access-related infection in one patient (CIRSE grade 3) and both in one patient (CIRSE grade 3). In detail, one access-related complication occurred in a patient with subcostal TSPVA (CIRSE grade 1 complication) and the other three complications occurred in patients with intercostal TSPVA (one CIRSE grade 1 complication and two CIRSE grade 3 complication) (p = 0.614). No patient required interventional or surgical treatment due to puncture tract bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Gelfoam-based plugging of the puncture tract was feasible and safe for transsplenic access in adult patients undergoing percutaneous portal vein interventions. The lack of major bleeding complications and complete absorption of the gelatine sponge make it a safe alternative to transjugular and transhepatic access and re-interventions via the splenic route.

Extrahepatic portomesenteric obstruction resulting in splanchnic hypertension and refractory ascites

Portal hypertension is a commonly described etiology that typically stems from underlying cirrhosis. Interventional radiologists may offer several interventions in the multidisciplinary approach to managing these patients. However, it is important to ascertain the cause and type of hypertension before intervention to avoid poor outcomes. We describe a case of an 89-year-old male with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and isolated superior mesenteric venous hypertension secondary to external stent compression at the portomesenteric confluence. This resulted in refractory ascites which was significantly relieved after portal to superior mesenteric vein stent placement.

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix of the afferent loop after pancreatoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Jejunal varix is a concerning late complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) due to the risk of recurrent and intractable bleeding. Our aim was to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix after PD.

METHODS

A total of 709 patients who underwent PD between 2007 and 2017 were included. Preoperative and postoperative CT images were reviewed to evaluate the development of portal vein (PV) stenosis (≥50%) and jejunal varices.

RESULTS

Jejunal varix developed in 83 (11.7%) patients at a median of 12 months after PD. Eighteen (21.7%) patients experienced variceal bleeding. PV stenosis (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 33.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.6-66.7) and PV/superior mesenteric vein resection (P = 0.028; OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.7) were independent risk factors for jejunal varix. Of the nine patients who underwent stent placement for PV stenosis before the formation of jejunal varices, none experienced variceal bleeding. By contrast, 18 (27.3%) of the 135 patients without PV stent placement experienced at least one episode of variceal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of jejunal varix was substantial after PD. PV stenosis was a strong risk factor for jejunal varix. Early PV stent placement and maintaining stent patency could reduce the risk of variceal bleeding in patients with PV stenosis.

Long-term efficacy and risk factors for stent occlusion in portal vein stent placement: a multi-institutional retrospective study

Background

Surgical treatment for PV (portal vein) stenosis/occlusion can pose a fatal risk of massive bleeding from severe adhesions and collateral vessel formation. PV stents placement is a minimally invasive and effective procedure for PV stenosis/occlusion, but PV stents sometimes occlude. The relationship between post-stent PV hemodynamics and stent occlusion has not been thoroughly investigated. Certain precautions during PV stent placement may reduce the risk of stent occlusion. This study aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of PV stent patency and investigate factors including PV hemodynamics associated with stent occlusion.

Materials and methods

Thirty-four consecutive patients with PV stenosis/occlusion who underwent PV stent placement in four institutions between December 2006 and February 2021 were retrospectively examined. The primary study endpoints were technical success, clinical success, and cumulative stent patency rate. The secondary endpoints were risk factors of stent occlusion. A univariable Cox proportional hazards model with sixteen variables was used to determine predictors of stent occlusion. Factors with p-value ≤ 0.1 in univariable analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. Alpha was set at 0.05.

Results

Technical and clinical success rates were 88.2% and 79.4%, respectively. Six patients (17.7%) experienced stent occlusion. The cumulative stent patency rate at six months, one year, and three years was 79.1%, 79.1%, and 65.9%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the variables with p-value ≤ 0.1 were lesion length > 4 cm, hepatofugal collateral vein visualization after stent placement, and residual stenosis > 30% after stent placement. In the multivariate analysis, residual stenosis > 30% after stent placement was significantly associated with stent occlusion (hazard ratio, 10.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–108.44; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

PV stent placement was technically feasible and effective in improving portal hypertension. However, stent occlusion was not uncommon. Residual stenosis > 30% after stent placement was significantly associated with stent occlusion. We should pay attention to correctly assess the range of stenosis and release the stenosis as much as possible.

Case Report: Interventional therapy for portal venous stenosis caused by systemic vasculitis

Systemic vasculitis are multisystem blood vessel disorders. However, Portal venous involvement is extremely rare, which represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to the heterogeneous nature, a lack of diagnostic criteria and limited effective therapy of vasculitis. We have reported a 48-year-old woman who was previously diagnosed with systemic vasculitis and was treated with prednisone, presented with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding on admission. Further abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) with three-dimensional reconstruction suggested atrophic left hepatic lobe, enlarged spleen, and severe stenosis of main portal vein. Liver biopsy showed no evidence of fibrosis/cirrhosis. To prevent rebleeding, portal venous angioplasty by balloon dilation with collateral varices embolization was performed, and the GI hemorrhage was resolved completely. However, refractory ascites presented 8 months postoperatively. Abdominal CT angiography confirmed the recurrence of portal venous stenosis. Portal venous angioplasty by stent implantation was then performed to treat the portal hypertension (PHT)-related complications. After the intervention, the patient received anticoagulation therapy and continued immunosuppressive therapy. During the 5-year follow-up, the patient did not experience any onset of GI bleeding or ascites. Therefore, portal venous angioplasty with stent placement could be an effective treatment to prevent PHT-related complications when immunosuppression therapy failed.

Transsplenic Portal System Catheterization: Review of Current Indications and Techniques

Multiple diseases of the portal system require effective portal vein access for endovascular management. While percutaneous transhepatic and transjugular approaches remain the standard methods of portal vein access, transsplenic access (TSA) has gained recognition as an effective and safe technique to access the portal system in patients with contraindications to traditional approaches. Recently, the utility of percutaneous TSA has grown, with described treatments including recanalization of chronic portal vein occlusion, placement of stents for portal vein stenosis, portal vein embolization of the liver, embolization of gastric varices, placement of complicated transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, and interventions after liver transplant. The authors provide a review of percutaneous TSA, including indications, a summary of related portal vein diseases, and the different techniques used for access and closure. In addition, an imaging-based review of technical considerations of TSA interventions is presented, with a review of potential procedural complications. With technical success rates that mirror or rival the standard methods and reported low rates of major complications, TSA can be a safe and effective option in clinical scenarios where traditional approaches are not feasible. ^©RSNA, 2022.

The short-term outcomes of distal pancreatectomy with portal vein/superior mesenteric vein resection

BACKGROUND

Portal vein/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) resection during distal pancreatectomy (DP) is often associated with technical difficulties due to the close anatomic relationship between pancreatic head and PV/SMV. In this paper, we present our operative technique and short-term outcomes of DP combined with venous resection (DP-VR) for left-sided pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

We reviewed 368 consecutive cases of DP for PC from January 2013 to December 2018 in our institution, and identified 41 patients (11.1%) who had undergone DP-VR. The remaining 327 DP patients (88.9%) were matched to DP-VR using propensity scores in the proportion of 1:2. Demographics, intraoperative details, postoperative complications and the pathological results were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Out of the 41 DP-VR cases, in 14 (34.1%) venous resection with primary closure was performed, while the remaining 27 (65.9%) underwent end-to-end anastomosis without graft. A propensity-score-matched analysis revealed that DP-VR caused an increased risk of postoperative bleeding (17.1% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.016) and delayed gastric emptying (9.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.042) compared to standard DP. Overall morbidity (46.3% vs. 36.6%, P = 0.332), postoperative pancreatic fistula (31.7% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.672), R0 resection (58.5% vs. 67.1%, P = 0.223), 30-day reoperation (2.4% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.719), and 90-day mortality (0% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.550) were comparable between the two groups. In postoperative computed tomographic scans of 34 patients (82.9%) at a 90-day follow-up, PV/SMV stenosis was suggested in two patients (5.9%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the higher rates of postoperative bleeding, DP-VR was found to be a feasible and safe surgery with acceptable postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to standard DP for left-sided pancreatic cancer.

Imaging-guided interventions modulating portal venous flow: evidence and controversies

Portal hypertension is defined by an increase in the portosystemic venous gradient. In most cases, increased resistance to portal blood flow is the initial cause of elevated portal pressure. More than 90% of cases of portal hypertension are estimated to be due to advanced chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, a non-pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension, involve the placement of a stent between the portal vein and the hepatic vein or inferior vena cava which helps bypass hepatic resistance. Portal hypertension may also be a result of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis or compression. In these cases, percutaneous portal vein recanalisation restores portal trunk patency, thus preventing portal hypertension-related complications. Any portal blood flow impairment leads to progressive parenchymal atrophy and triggers hepatic regeneration in preserved areas. This provides the rationale for using portal vein embolisation to modulate hepatic volume in preparation for extended hepatic resection. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based review of the rationale for, and outcomes associated with, the main imaging-guided interventions targeting the portal vein, as well as to discuss the main controversies around such approaches.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Venous Interventions: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Interventions for thrombotic and nonthrombotic venous disorders have increased with technical advances and more trained venous specialists. Antithrombotic therapy is essential to clinical and procedural success; however, post-procedural therapeutic regimens exhibit significant heterogeneity due to limited prospective randomized data as well as incomplete mechanistic understanding of the critical factors driving long-term patency. Post-interventional antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic venous disorders should adhere to existing venous thromboembolism management guidelines, which include 3-6 months of therapeutic anticoagulation at minimum and consideration of extended therapy in patients with higher risk of thrombosis due to procedural or patient factors. The additive benefit of antiplatelet agents in the acute and intermediate period is unknown, having shown improved long-term stent patency in some retrospective studies. Dual and/or triple agent therapy should be limited based on individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding. The treatment of non-thrombotic disorders is more heterogeneous, though patients with limited flow, extensive stent material, or underlying prothrombotic states such as malignancy or chronic inflammation may benefit from single- or multi-agent antithrombotic therapy. However, the agent, dose, and duration of therapy remain indeterminate. Future prospective studies are warranted to improve patient risk stratification and standardize post-procedural antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving venous interventions.

Long term clinical outcomes of portal vein stenting for symptomatic portal vein stenosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Gastrointestinal bleeding caused by portal vein (PV) stenosis is serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) The purpose of this study is to reveal the long-term clinical outcomes of PV stenting for symptomatic PV stenosis and risk factors of stent related complication.Fifteen patients who underwent portal vein stenting for symptomatic PV stenosis after PD between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The whole cohort was divided into 9 patients with benign stenosis group (Group-B) and 6 patients with recurrence group (Group-R).The median follow up period was 17.0 (interquartile range 12.0-38.0) months. The technical success rate and clinical success rate was revealed at 93.3% and 86.7%. The primary patency rate of stents was 79.4% and mean patency period was 14.0 (4.0-28.0) months. There was significant difference in time to stenosis and proportion of anticoagulation treatment between 2 groups [2.0 (1.0-4.0) months vs 18.5 (2.5-50.3) months, P  = .035 and 100% vs 50%, P  = .044. In univariable analysis, stent diameter was found to have a significant correlation with stent occlusion (P  = .036).PV stenting was found to be feasible and safe in the treatment of symptomatic PV stenosis from a long term point of view.

Embolization of the Transhepatic Tract after Percutaneous Portal Vein Interventions: Single-Centre Retrospective Study Comparing n-butyl Cyanoacrylate Versus Coils

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of transhepatic puncture tract embolization with n-butyl cyanoacrylate (n-BCA) versus coils after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein interventions in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It was also the aim of the study to evaluate the extent of artifacts in CT exams during FU.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study from 2017-2019 in 190 patients who underwent percutaneous transhepatic portal vein interventions. The transhepatic puncture tracts were embolized with n-BCA in 88 patients (Group A) and with coils in 102 patients (Group B). Procedure-related complications and image noise around coils and n-BCA were compared between the groups. No significant differences were noted at baseline between both groups (platelets, coagulation, liver disease, types of procedures, liver function, liver tumors).

RESULTS

All patients underwent transhepatic puncture tract embolization. Procedure-related complications were only observed in patients from Group B: subcapsular hemorrhage (n = 2; 1.96%), hepatic artery hemorrhage (n = 1; 0.98%), and pseudoaneurysms combined with hemobilia occurred (n = 1; 0.98%). In Group A, the distal part of the punctured portal vein branch was embolized with n-BCA in 1 patient (1.14%). Four major complications in Group B Vs 0 in Group A were observed, respectively (p < 0.0001). The image noise around n-BCA was significantly lower than that around coils (10.7 ± 1.7 HU vs. 54.3 ± 15.0 HU, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

n-BCA tract embolization is more effective than using coils, with fewer bleeding events, at the cost of a higher potential for unintended embolization of portal vein branches.

Ectopic variceal bleeding after hepatobiliary surgery: A case report

RATIONALE

Jejunal varices are rare in portal hypertension and are often difficult to diagnose and treat. Herein, we present a case of gastrointestinal bleeding due to jejunal varices after hepatobiliary surgery.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 69-year-old man presented with recurrent massive gastrointestinal bleeding. He underwent partial right hepatectomy and cholangiojejunostomy 2 years prior to the first onset of bleeding. Two sessions of endoscopic vessel ligation for esophageal varices were performed afterwards, and hematemesis resolved completely, but massive melena still recurred during the following 5 years.

DIAGNOSIS

The patient was diagnosed with jejunal varices caused by portal venous stenosis after hepatobiliary surgery.

INTERVENTION

Portal venous angioplasty using balloon dilation and stent implantation was performed.

OUTCOMES

After the intervention procedure, the patient did not experience any onset of gastrointestinal bleeding during follow-up.

LESSONS

Hepatopancreatobiliary could lead to the formation of jejunal varices. The combined use of capsule endoscopy, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and sometimes portal venography is a promising strategy to search for jejunal varices. Transcatheter angioplasty appears to be a safe and effective method for treatment of jejunal varices in certain appropriate cases.

Therapeutic effect of portal vein stenting for portal vein stenosis after upper-abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic effect of portal vein (PV) stenting for PV stenosis following nontransplant hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery has not been fully investigated.

METHODS

Changes in portal venous pressure (PVP) gradient before and after stenting, complications, symptomatic improvement, and stent patency were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified 14 consecutive patients undergoing PV stenting for malignant (n = 8) and benign (n = 6) PV stenosis. Signs of PV stenosis were composed of refractory ascites in 6 patients, varices with hemorrhagic tendencies in 5, and abnormal liver function in 5. The median PVP gradient after PV stenting was 3.0 cm H2O (range, 1.5-3.0), which was significantly smaller than that before PV stenting (median, 15 cm H2O [range, 2.5-25]; P < 0.01). Thirteen out of 14 (93%) achieved clinical success with symptomatic improvement, except one patient with sustained refractory ascites because of peritoneal seeding. During the median follow-up time of 7.3 months (range, 1.0-87), stent occlusion occurred in two patients (14%) because of intrastent tumor growth. The 1-year cumulative stent patency rate was 76% in the entire cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on durable effect on patency, we deemed PV stenting for PV stenosis after HPB surgery to be safe and beneficial for improving symptoms.

Portal Vein Stenting for Jejunal Variceal Bleeding after Recurrence of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

A 73-year-old woman with portal vein stenosis caused by tumor recurrence after pancreatoduodenectomy was treated with stent placement without embolization of the jejunal varix. Anticoagulation therapy using heparin followed by rivaroxaban was administered after the procedure. She continued to receive systemic chemotherapy as an outpatient. Neither restenosis nor stent thrombosis was observed after 7 months. Based on the presented case and literature review, portal vein stenting is an effective treatment option for jejunal variceal bleeding caused by malignant portal venous stricture after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Antithrombotic therapy following portal venous stenting is required to prevent stent thrombosis in the majority of cases, although it has a risk of inducing recurrent variceal bleeding. Adjunctive jejunal variceal embolization can possibly be omitted in selected cases to obtain sufficient portal-SMV flow reconstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stenting as rescue treatment for recurrent oesophageal variceal bleeding in a 31-year-old woman with haepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic liver

A 31-year-old woman with hepatocellular carcinoma suffered from recurrent oesophageal variceal bleeding due to portal hypertension, which was caused by severe compression of the portal vein by metastatic lymph nodes. Endoscopic band ligation and pharmacological treatment did not suffice to prevent recurrence of variceal bleeding. Eventually, after the fifth variceal bleeding within 6 months, the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit in a haemodynamic shock. A Sengstaken-Blakemore tube was inserted and all treatment options were discussed, but only percutaneous transhepatic recanalisation of the portal vein with stent placement to reduce portal vein pressure was thought to be feasible with any chance to relieve portal vein pressure. After successful portal vein stenting, our patient did not have any recurrent bleeding in the remaining year of her life. We suggest that percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stenting may be a feasible and adequate last line treatment for complications of portal hypertension.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by total pancreatectomy with splenectomy and combined vascular resections after preoperative percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stent placement in locally advanced pancreatic cancer with portal vein total obliteration

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignant diseases in gastrointestinal system that only about 15-20% of the patients are potential candidates for resection at diagnostic stage. However, with the advent of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and advancement of surgical skills, patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), which were deemed initially unresectable, have undergone margin negative radical resection. Here, we present a case of a patient with LAPC who was previously treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with vascular resection after preoperative percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stent placement to relieve of portal vein obliteration. The patient recovered without any complication and was discharged on day 8 postoperatively.

A case of percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stent placement and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for duodenal variceal rupture occurring during chemotherapy for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Duodenal varices are ectopic varices that are rare but can involve any site along the digestive tract outside the gastroesophageal region. Ectopic variceal bleeding is generally massive and life threatening; the mortality rate is approximately 40%. Up to 17% of ectopic varices occur in the duodenum. However, duodenal varices pose a significant therapeutic challenge due to the lack of standard treatment guidelines. We report a case of duodenal variceal bleeding secondary to portal vein stenosis in a 77-year-old woman receiving chemotherapy for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. The patient presented with melena, nausea, vomiting and unstable vital signs suggestive of hemorrhagic shock. Emergency esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed large nodular varices with a ruptured erosion on top in the superior duodenal angle, and variceal bleeding had stopped by the time of the procedure. Subsequent computed tomography showed the development of portosystemic collaterals; therefore, we performed percutaneous portal vein stent placement to reduce portal vein pressure. Since persistent bleeding was suspected, we also performed endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and achieved successful hemostasis with an improvement in liver function. This case revealed that a combination of portal vein stent placement and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy might be an effective therapy for duodenal variceal bleeding caused by portal vein stenosis.

Transhepatic stent placement for portal vein obstruction after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: long-term efficacy and risk factor for stent failure

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of transhepatic portal vein (PV) stent placement in patients with postoperative PV obstruction and to identify risk factors for stent failure.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and October 2019, percutaneous transhepatic PV stent placement was attempted in 60 patients with postoperative PV obstruction. Technical and clinical success, complications, and stent patency were retrospectively evaluated. Thirteen clinical variables were analyzed to determine risk factors for stent failure.

RESULTS

Stent placement was technically successful in all patients. Thromboaspiration (n = 19) and jejunal variceal embolization (n = 7) were performed in the same session. Clinical symptoms related to portal hypertension were resolved in 54 patients (90.0%). There was no procedure-related complication. During the follow-up period (mean 630 days), stent failure occurred in 13 patients. One- and 5-year stent patency rate was 74.8% and 64.9%, respectively. The presence of a pancreatic fistula was the only independent risk factor associated with stent failure (HR 7.54; 95% CI 2.02-28.10, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transhepatic PV stent placement is a technically feasible and effective treatment for postoperative PV obstruction. The pancreatic fistula is a risk factor for stent failure.

KEY POINTS

• Percutaneous transhepatic stent placement is an effective treatment to improve portal hypertension-related symptoms in patients with portal vein obstruction after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. • The pancreatic fistula is an independent risk factor for portal vein stent failure.

Portal vein stent placement after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic stent placement for portal vein (PV) stenosis after liver transplantation (LT) and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 455 patients who underwent LT and 522 patients who underwent resection of the pancreatic head between June 2011 and February 2016. Technical success, clinical success, patency, and complications were evaluated for both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were confirmed to have postoperative PV stenosis and were treated with percutaneous transhepatic PV stent placement. The technical success rate was 100%, the clinical success rate was 80%, and the long-term stent patency was 91.3% for the entire study population. Two procedure-related hemorrhages and two early stent thromboses occurred in the HPB group while no complications occurred in the LT group. A literature review of selected studies reporting PV stent placement for the treatment of PV stenosis after HPB surgery and LT showed a technical success rate of 78-100%, a clinical success rate of 72-100%, and a long-term patency of 57-100%, whereas the procedure-related complication rate varied from 0-33.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transhepatic PV stent is a safe and effective treatment for postoperative PV stenosis/occlusion in patients undergoing LT regardless of symptoms. Due to increased risk of complications, the indication for percutaneous PV stent placement after HPB surgery should be limited to patients with clinical symptoms after an individual assessment.

Portomesenteric Venous Complications after Pancreatic Surgery with Venous Reconstruction: Imaging and Intervention

Pancreatic surgery with en bloc venous resection and reconstruction is becoming increasingly common in the current era of expanding neoadjuvant oncologic therapies and advanced surgical techniques for patients with more anatomically complex tumors. However, patients who have alterations in their venous outflow are at increased risk for postoperative portomesenteric venous stenosis and/or thrombosis. Cross-sectional imaging for postoperative surveillance, including multiphase CT or MRI, is critical for recognizing portomesenteric venous complications and thus implementing early intervention and preventing complications related to portomesenteric venous hypertension. Hypertension-related complications include ascites, variceal or gastrointestinal bleeding, postprandial abdominal pain, intestinal edema, protein-losing enteropathy, malabsorptive diarrhea, and splenomegaly. Percutaneous transhepatic, transsplenic, and transjugular portomesenteric interventions, including venoplasty, stent placement, and thrombectomy or thrombolysis, are safe and effective options for restoring patency to the portomesenteric venous system. Preintervention CT or MRI and diagnostic catheter venography are important for procedural planning, while postintervention CT or MRI surveillance is critical for detecting recurrent stenosis or thrombosis, or de novo portomesenteric venous disease. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2020.

Evaluation of Technical Success, Efficacy, and Safety of Portomesenteric Venous Intervention following Nontransplant Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate technical success, efficacy and safety of portomesenteric venous (PMV) intervention for PMV stenosis or occlusion following nontransplant hepatobiliary or pancreatic (HPB) surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review identified 42 patients (mean age 60 y) with PMV stenosis (n = 33; 79%) or occlusion (n = 9; 21%) who underwent attempted PMV intervention following HPB surgery between June 1, 2011, and April 1, 2018. Main outcomes were technical success, primary patency rates, and complications. Technical success was compared by venous pathology and primary PMV patency based on anticoagulation status after the procedure using Fisher exact test. Rates of primary patency by stent group were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Technical success was 91% (n = 38/42) and significantly higher in patients with stenosis (n = 33/33; 100%) vs occlusion (n = 5/9; 56%) (P = .001). Primary presenting symptom resolved in 28 (87%) patients, including 6 (100%) patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. At mean imaging follow-up of 8.6 months ± 8.8, primary stent patency was 76%. There was no significant difference in primary stent patency based on anticoagulation status after the procedure (P = .48). There were 2 (4.8%) periprocedural complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Portomesenteric venoplasty and stent placement following nontransplant HPB surgery is safe with a high rate of technical success if performed before chronic occlusion.

Benign Portal Vein Stenosis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The long-term patency of the portal vein (PV) in patients who survive after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical features and risk factors for benign PV stenosis after PD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the patients who underwent PD from September 2002 and December 2015 at our institution without intraoperative radiation therapy or concomitant PV resection. The postoperative computed tomography of each patient was evaluated, and PV stenosis was defined as the shortest diameter of the PV being <3 mm. The patients with PV stenosis due to local recurrence were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 458 patients, PV stenosis occurred in 57 (12.4%), including benign PV stenosis in 28 (6.1%) and PV stenosis due to local recurrence in 29 (6.3%). Of the 28 patients with benign PV stenosis, 7 (25%) developed symptoms related to portal hypertension, namely recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding in 5 and refractory ascites in 2. Six patients were treated with percutaneous transhepatic PV stent placement, and all of their symptoms improved. A multivariate analysis found that a postoperative pancreatic fistula was an independent risk factor for benign PV stenosis after PD (odds ratio, 4.36; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative pancreatic fistula was a significant risk factor for benign PV stenosis after PD. Stent placement for benign PV stenosis was effective for the patients with symptoms due to portal hypertension.

A Case of Portal Venous Stenting for Metastatic Hilar Stricture After the Radical Resection of Colon Cancer

Like standard stenting in an unresectable malignant stricture of the biliary or digestive tract, minimally invasive modality for portal stenosis is indispensable for palliation. We describe here a safe and practical procedure of portal stenting in a case of metastatic hilar strictures developed nine years after the radical resection of sigmoid colon cancer. After urgent delivery of the biliary tract stenting for the relief of jaundice, the patient received palliative stenting for the stricture of the portal trunk. Transhepatic approach, via the anterior branch, of the portal vein intervention may fit into the standard aspects for portal stenting.

Successful Treatment of a Case of Ectopic Jejunal Varices with Portal Venous Stenting

Patient: Female, 77

Final Diagnosis: Ectopic variceal bleeding of the jejunum

Symptoms: Abdominal pain • hematemesis • melena

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: Portal vein stenting

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Portomesenteric Venous Stenting for Palliation of Ascites and Variceal Bleeding Caused by Prehepatic Portal Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stenting (PVS) for palliation of refractory ascites and/or variceal bleeding caused by extrahepatic portomesenteric venous stenosis in patients with pancreaticobiliary cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective review of patients who underwent PVS between January 2007 and July 2015 was performed. A total of 38 patients were identified, of whom 28 met the inclusion criterion of PVS performed primarily for refractory ascites or variceal bleeding. In addition to technical success and overall survival, clinical success was measured by fraction of remaining life palliated. The palliative effect of PVS was also quantified by measuring changes in liver and ascites volumes after the procedure.

RESULTS

Technical success was 93% (26/28). Stent deployment involved more than one portomesenteric vessel in most patients (20/26). The cumulative probability of symptom recurrence at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months was 12%, 16%, 26%, and 40%, respectively. There was a significant difference (p < .001) in the probability of symptom recurrence, recurrence of abdominal ascites, and increase in liver volume between patients whose stents remained patent and those whose stents demonstrated partial or complete occlusion. The mean fraction of remaining life palliated was 87%. All but two patients were found to have improvement in clinical symptoms for the majority of their lives after the procedure. There were no major or minor complications.

CONCLUSION

As a low-risk procedure with a high clinical success rate, PVS can play a substantial role in improving quality of life in patients with portomesenteric stenoses.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Portomesenteric venous stenosis is a challenging complication of pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Portomesenteric stenoses can lead to esophageal, gastric, and mesenteric variceal bleeding, as well as abdominal ascites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of portal vein stenting (PVS) in patients with cancer who have symptomatic portal hypertension caused by portomesenteric venous compression. As a low-risk procedure with a high clinical success rate, PVS can play a substantial role in improving quality of life in patients with portomesenteric stenoses.

Portal vein stent placement for the treatment of postoperative portal vein stenosis: long-term success and factor associated with stent failure

Background

Portal vein stenosis develops due to different causes including postoperative inflammation and oncological processes. However, limited effective therapy is available for portal vein stenosis. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of a portal vein stent for portal vein stenosis after hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery and to determine the factors associated with stent patency.

Methods

From December 2003 to December 2015, portal vein stents were implanted in 29 patients who had portal vein stenosis after hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of portal vein stent placement. Twelve clinical variables were analyzed for their role in stent patency.

Results

The symptoms before portal vein stent placements included nine patients with hepatic encephalopathy, six patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, four patients with ascites, and four patients with hyperbilirubinemia. Portal vein thrombosis due to postoperative portal stenosis was found in four patients. Portal vein stent were successfully implanted without any major complications. Of the 21 patients with symptoms, 17 showed improvement, and stent patency was maintained in 22 (76%) patients. The presence of a collateral vein is the only variable related to the development of an occlusion after portal stenting.

Conclusion

Portal vein stent were implanted safely and had good long-term patency. This procedure is useful to relieve portal hypertension-related symptoms and to improve the quality of life. Our data strongly suggest that embolization to block blood flow in a collateral vein during portal vein stent placement will improve the patency of the stent.

Therapeutic efficacy and stent patency of transhepatic portal vein stenting after surgery

AIM

To evaluate portal vein (PV) stenosis and stent patency after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery, using abdominal computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Percutaneous portal venous stenting was attempted in 22 patients with significant PV stenosis (> 50%) - after hepatobiliary or pancreatic surgery - diagnosed by abdominal CT. Stents were placed in various stenotic lesions after percutaneous transhepatic portography. Pressure gradient across the stenotic segment was measured in 14 patients. Stents were placed when the pressure gradient across the stenotic segment was > 5 mmHg or PV stenosis was > 50%, as observed on transhepatic portography. Patients underwent follow-up abdominal CT and technical and clinical success, complications, and stent patency were evaluated.

RESULTS

Stent placement was successful in 21 patients (technical success rate: 95.5%). Stents were positioned through the main PV and superior mesenteric vein (n = 13), main PV (n = 2), right and main PV (n = 1), left and main PV (n = 4), or main PV and splenic vein (n = 1). Patients showed no complications after stent placement. The time between procedure and final follow-up CT was 41-761 d (mean: 374.5 d). Twenty stents remained patent during the entire follow-up. Stent obstruction - caused by invasion of the PV stent by a recurrent tumor - was observed in 1 patient in a follow-up CT performed after 155 d after the procedure. The cumulative stent patency rate was 95.7%. Small in-stent low-density areas were found in 11 (55%) patients; however, during successive follow-up CT, the extent of these areas had decreased.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous transhepatic stent placement can be safe and effective in cases of PV stenosis after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. Stents show excellent patency in follow-up abdominal CT, despite development of small in-stent low-density areas.

Management of portal hypertension derived from uncommon causes

Portal hypertension can arise from any condition interfering with normal blood flow at any level within the portal system. Herein, we presented two uncommon cases of the portal hypertension and its treatment with brief literature review. A 71-year-old man who underwent right hemihepatectomy revealed a tumor recurrence adjacent to the inferior vena cava (IVC). After radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with lymph node dissection, he was referred for abdominal distension. The abdomen computed tomography scan showed severe ascites with a narrowing middle hepatic vein (MHV) and IVC around the RFA site. After insertion of two stents at the IVC and MHV, the ascites disappeared. Another 73-year-old man underwent right trisectionectomy of liver and segmental resection of the portal vein (PV). After operation, he underwent conservative management due to continuous abdominal ascites. The abdomen computed tomography scan showed severe ascites with obliteration of the left PV. After insertion of stent, the ascites disappeared. A decrease of the pressure gradient between the PV and IVC is one of the important treatment strategies for portal hypertension. Vascular stent is useful in the reduction of pressure gradient and thus, can be a treatment option for portal hypertension.

Percutaneous treatment of symptomatic superior mesenteric vein stenosis using self-expanding nitinol stents

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical and clinical success of percutaneous superior mesenteric vein (SMV) stenting in symptomatic patients using self-expanding nitinol stents.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the technical and clinical success of percutaneous SMV stenting of 6 symptomatic patients (3 men, mean age 67 years, range 48-81 years). Stenosis of the SMV was caused by postoperative stricture (n=3), pancreas carcinoma (n=1) and pancreatitis (n=2). As a result of the stenosis, 3 patients had symptomatic ascites, 2 patients showed signs of mesenteric ischemia and 1 patient had recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding. Stenting was performed by a percutaneous transhepatic approach using self-expanding nitinol stents.

RESULTS

Stenting of the SMV was technically and clinically successful in all patients. No peri-interventional complications occurred. The stent diameters ranged from 6 to 14 mm. During the mean follow-up of 6 months (range, 2-10 months) 1 patient presented early stent occlusion 2 weeks after placement.

CONCLUSION

Stenting of a symptomatic SMV stenosis using self-expanding nitinol stents is feasible and clinically effective.

Percutaneous transhepatic portal vein stenting for malignant portal vein stenosis secondary to recurrent perihilar biliary cancer

BACKGROUND

Transhepatic portal vein (PV) stenting has been shown to be one of the most important treatments for patients with PV stenosis caused by hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients with PV stenosis caused by the recurrence of a perihilar biliary malignancy underwent transhepatic PV stenting. A self-expandable metallic stent was deployed at the stenosis site. The patients were retrospectively analyzed with regard to the procedure, complications, and survival after the stent placement.

RESULTS

The median interval between the primary resection and the PV stenting was 22 months. The initial hepatic resection was a left trisectionectomy with caudate lobectomy in seven patients, a left hepatectomy with caudate lobectomy in one patient, a right anterior sectionectomy with caudate lobectomy following a left hepatectomy in one patient and a partial liver resection in one patient. The angle of the PV around the stenosis was greater in the patients with PV stenosis located in the right posterior PV. Eight patients with successful PV stent placement were able to receive anticancer treatment, with a median survival of 14 months. The remaining two patients without successful PV stent placement survived less than 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal vein stenting might offer relief from the symptoms associated with PV hypertension and the opportunity for sustainable anticancer therapy in patients with recurrent perihilar biliary malignancy.

Stent Placement for Portal Vein Stenosis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Portal vein (PV) stenosis is a worrisome late complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) that causes intestinal bleeding from varices, which must be diagnosed correctly and treated promptly. Recent reports advocate the usefulness of stent placement to improve PV stenosis.

METHODS

We evaluated the cause, diagnosis, and treatment method of PV stenosis after PD and the duration of stent patency in our institution.

RESULTS

Intestinal bleeding caused by PV stenosis occurred in 5 (2.4%) of 205 patients. A computed tomography scan was useful to diagnose this complication. Four of 5 patients with PV stenosis underwent percutaneous transhepatic PV stent placement. The duration of stent patency was 21-41 months, and no rebleeding occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous stent placement is viable, less invasive option than laparotomy for the management of PV stenosis after PD.

Imaging of the porta hepatis: spectrum of disease

A wide array of pathologic conditions can arise within the porta hepatis, which encompasses the portal triad (the main portal vein, common hepatic artery, and common bile ducts), lymphatics, nerves, and connective tissue. Major vascular diseases of the portal triad include thrombosis, stenosis, and aneurysm. Portal vein thrombosis can complicate liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma and has important therapeutic implications. Hepatic artery thrombosis and stenosis require immediate attention to reduce graft loss in liver transplant recipients. Congenital (eg, choledochal cyst) and acquired (benign and malignant) diseases of the biliary system can manifest as mass lesions in the porta hepatis. Lymphadenopathy can arise from neoplastic and nonneoplastic entities. Uncommon causes of mass lesions arise from nerves (eg, neurofibroma, neurofibrosarcoma) and connective tissue (sarcomas) and are rare. The hepatoduodenal ligament is a peritoneal reflection at the porta hepatis and is an important route for the spread of pancreatic and gastrointestinal cancers. Imaging plays a major role in diagnosis and enables appropriate management. Ultrasonography accurately demonstrates anatomic variations and pathologic conditions and is the initial modality of choice for detection of vascular and biliary lesions. Multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging allow characterization and differentiation of various masses in the porta hepatis. Imaging-guided interventions, including embolization and stent placement, also play a key role in disease management.

Percutaneous transhepatic placement of a stent-graft to treat a delayed mesoportal hemorrhage after pancreaticoduodenectomy

Postoperative hemorrhage is one of the most severe complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. While detection of bleeding from adjacent arteries via conventional angiography and treatment with endovascular arterial coil embolization has been well established, to date no reports of percutaneous therapy for mesoportal hemorrhage have been published. This article describes an unusual case of delayed post-pancreaticoduodenectomy hemorrhage detected on a fluoroscopic drain check and treated with percutaneous transhepatic covered stent placement.