Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization for portal hypertension with recurrent variceal bleeding

BACKGROUND： Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt（TIPS） and open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization（OSED） are widely used to treat patients with portal hypertension and recurrent variceal bleeding（PHRVB）. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness between TIPS and OSED for the treatment of PHRVB.METHODS： The data were retrospectively retrieved from 479 cirrhotic patients（Child-Pugh A or B class） with PHRVB, who had undergone TIPS（TIPS group） or OSED（OSED group） between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2014.RESULTS： A total of 196 patients received TIPS, whereas 283 underwent OSED. Within one month after TIPS and OSED, the rebleeding rates were 6.1% and 3.2%, respectively（P=0.122）. Significantly lower incidence of pleural effusion,splenic vein thrombosis, and pulmonary infection, as well as higher hepatic encephalopathy rate, shorter postoperative length of hospital stay, and higher hospital costs were observed in the TIPS group than those in the OSED group. During the follow-up periods（29 months）, significantly higher incidences of rebleeding（15.3% vs 4.6%, P=0.001） and hepatic encephalopathy（17.3% vs 3.9%, P=0.001） were observed in the TIPS group than in the OSED group. The incidence of instent stenosis was 18.9%. The survival rates were 91.3% in the TIPS group and 95.1% in the OSED group. The long-term liver function did not worsen after either TIPS or OSED.CONCLUSION： For the patients with liver function in the Child-Pugh A or B class, TIPS is not superior over OSED in terms of PHRVB treatment and rebleeding prevention.

Combined Laparoscopic Splenectomy and Esophagogastric Devascularization versus Open Splenectomy and Esophagogastric Devascularization for Portal Hypertension due to Liver Cirrhosis

This study was conducted to compare the feasibility,safety and effectiveness of the combined-laparoscopic splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization(C-LSED)with open splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization surgery(OSED)in patients with portal hypertension due to liver cirrhosis.From February 2014 to June 2018,68 patients with portal hypertension were diagnosed as having serious gastroesophageal varices and/or hypersplenism in our center.Thirty patients underwent C-LSED and 38 patients received OSED.Results and outcomes were compared retrospectively.No patients of C-LSED group required an intraoperative conversion to open surgery.Significantly shorter operating time,less blood loss,lower transfusion rates,shorter postoperative hospital stay,lower rates of complications were found in C-LSED group than in C-LSED group(P<0.05).No death and rebleeding were documented in both groups during the follow-up periods of one year Postoperative endoscopy revealed that varices in the patients of both groups were alleviated significantly from severe to mild,and in a part of cases,the varices disappeared.The final results suggest that the C-LSED technique is superior to open procedure,due to slightly invasive,simplified operative procedure,significantly shorter operating time,less intraoperative bleeding and lower post-operative complication rates.And C-LSED offers comparable long-term effects to open surgery.

Esophagogastric devascularization without splenectomy in portal hypertension: safe and effective?

BACKGROUND： Esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage is a life-threatening complication of portal hypertension. In this study, we compared the therapeutic effect of a novel surgi- cal procedure, esophagogastric devascularization without splenectomy （EDWS）, with the widely used modified esopha- gogastric devascularization （MED） with splenectomy for the treatment of portal hypertension.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Selective versus Nonselective Esophagogastric Devascularization for Portal Hypertension

Cirrhosis with portal hypertension is a common disease which has a significant impact on the quality of patients＇ life. Esophagogastric devascularization（EGDV） has been demonstrated to be an effective method to treat portal hypertension, however certain complications are associated with it. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and clinical outcome of the selective EGDV（sEGDV） for the treatment of portal hypertension. The study was conducted prospectively from Jan. 1 2011 to Dec. 31, 2012, and 180 patients were randomized to the sEGDV group（n=90） or the non-sEGDV（n-sEGDV） group（n=90）. Patients＇ demographics, preoperative lab test results and operative details were comparable between the two groups. Postoperative and short-term complications were analyzed in two groups. There was statistically significant difference（P〈0.01） in the PVF reduction between the two groups. Post-operative complications showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of bleeding, ascites, acute portal vein thrombosis, fever and hepatic encephalopathy. Mortality between two groups was comparable. The incidence of splenic fossa effusion after the surgery was lower in sEGDV group than in n-sEGDV group. There were no significant differences in the short-term follow-up data such as esophageal varices and portal hypertensive gastropathy（P〉0.05）. It is suggested that sEGDV is a safe, simple and effective surgical procedure. It has both the advantages of the shunt and devascularization because it preserves body＇s voluntary diversion. With the advantage of low incidence of postoperative complications, it is an ideal surgical approach for the treatment of portal hypertension.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and splenectomy are more effective than endoscopic therapy for recurrent variceal bleeding in patients with idiopathic noncirrhotic portal hypertension

BACKGROUND Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt(TIPS),splenectomy plus esophagogastric devascularization(SED)and endoscopic therapy+non-selectiveβ-blockers(ET+NSBB)are widely applied in secondary prevention of recurrent gastroesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.These different treatments,however,have not been compared in patients with idiopathic noncirrhotic portal hypertension(INCPH).AIM To compare the outcomes of TIPS,SED and ET+NSBB in the control of variceal rebleeding in patients with INCPH.METHODS This retrospective study recruited patients from six centers across China.Demographic characteristics,baseline profiles and follow-up clinical outcomes were collected.Post-procedural clinical outcomes,including incidence of rebleeding,hepatic encephalopathy(HE),portal vein thrombosis(PVT)and mortality rates,were compared in the different groups.RESULTS In total,81 patients were recruited,with 28 receiving TIPS,26 SED,and 27 ET+NSBB.No significant differences in demographic and baseline characteristics were found among these three groups before the procedures.After treatment,blood ammonia was significantly higher in the TIPS group;hemoglobin level and platelet count were significantly higher in the SED group(P<0.01).Rebleeding rate was significantly higher in the ET+NSBB group(P<0.01).Mortality was 3.6%,3.8%and 14.8%in the TIPS,SED and ET+NSBB groups,respectively,with no significant differences(P=0.082).Logistic regression analysis showed that mortality was significantly correlated with rebleeding,HE,portal thrombosis and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis(P<0.05).CONCLUSION In patients with INCPH,TIPS and SED were more effective in controlling rebleeding than ET+NSBB,but survival rates were not significantly different among the three groups.Mortality was significantly correlated with rebleeding,HE and PVT.