Corrosion cast study of the canine hepatic veins

Venous hepatic segmentation in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris-L. 1758)

The external shape of the liver is varied and determines specific vascular arrangements. This morphological relationship is important to establish hepatic segmentation in different species submitted to surgeries that aim to preserve a larger area of liver parenchyma. After observing 60 livers injected with Neoprene Latex and three plastic moulds obtained by corrosion, eight hepatic venous segments were identified, drained by six hepatic veins agrouped into segmental veins, which drained one sector (segments I, VI, VII and VIII) and intersegmental veins, which drained more than one sector (segments II/III and IV/V). They were described as follows: left intersegmental vein, formed by a segmental vein from the papillary process (segment I), two to three lateral left segmental veins that drained the segment II, and one to five left paramedian segmental veins that drained the segment III; sagittal intersegmental vein, formed by the confluence between segmental vein of the quadrate lobe (segment IV) and the medial right paramedian segmental vein, which derived from the segment V; lateral right paramedian vein drained the dorsocranial sector of the segment VI; the lateral right segmental vein, formed by one to four vessels that drained segment VII, and the segmental vein of the caudate process, which drained the segment VIII. Understanding the number and disposition of the hepatic veins in lobate livers is essential to reduce bleeding risks in surgeries. The nomenclature based on segmentation analogy of non-lobate liver could be less confusing and, therefore, be more useful in the surgical approaches of lobate livers.

Canine intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion into the systemic circulation is commonly through primary hepatic veins as assessed with CT angiography

Congenital intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (IHPSS) in dogs are traditionally classified as right, left, or central divisional. There are few descriptive studies regarding the variation of IHPSS within these categories. This multicenter, analytical, cross-sectional study aimed to describe a large series of dogs with CT angiography (CTA) of IHPSS, hypothesizing that there would be variation to the existing classification. Ninety CTA studies were assessed for IHPSS type, insertion, and the relationship of the insertion to the primary hepatic veins. Ninety-two percent of IHPSS inserted into a primary hepatic vein (HV) or phrenic vein, 8% inserted directly into the ventral aspect of the intrahepatic caudal vena cava. The most common IHPSS type was a single right divisional (44%), including those inserting via the right lateral HV or the caudate HV. Left divisional IHPSS (33%) inserted into the left HV or left phrenic vein. Central divisional IHPSS (13%) inserted into the quadrate HV, central HV, dorsal right medial HV, or directly into the ventral aspect of the intrahepatic caudal vena cava. Multiple sites of insertion were seen in 9% of dogs. Within left, central, and right divisional types, further subclassifications can therefore commonly be defined based on the hepatic veins with which the shunting vessel communicates. Relating IHPSS morphology to the receiving primary HV could make IHPSS categorization more consistent and may influence the type and method of IHPSS attenuation recommended.

Do 3D Printing Models Improve Anatomical Teaching About Hepatic Segments to Medical Students? A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

It is a difficult and frustrating task for young surgeons and medical students to understand the anatomy of hepatic segments. We tried to develop an optimal 3D printing model of hepatic segments as a teaching aid to improve the teaching of hepatic segments.

METHODS

A fresh human cadaveric liver without hepatic disease was CT scanned. After 3D reconstruction, three types of 3D computer models of hepatic structures were designed and 3D printed as models of hepatic segments without parenchyma (type 1) and with transparent parenchyma (type 2), and hepatic ducts with segmental partitions (type 3). These models were evaluated by six experts using a five-point Likert scale. Ninety two medical freshmen were randomized into four groups to learn hepatic segments with the aid of the three types of models and traditional anatomic atlas (TAA). Their results of two quizzes were compared to evaluate the teaching effects of the four methods.

RESULTS

Three types of models were successful produced which displayed the structures of hepatic segments. By experts' evaluation, type 3 model was better than type 1 and 2 models in anatomical condition, type 2 and 3 models were better than type 1 model in tactility, and type 3 model was better than type 1 model in overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). The first quiz revealed that type 1 model was better than type 2 model and TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 and TAA in teaching effects (P < 0.05). The second quiz found that type 1 model was better than TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 model and TAA regarding teaching effects (P < 0.05). Only TAA group had significant declines between two quizzes (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The model with segmental partitions proves to be optimal, because it can best improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments.