AIM： To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different portal vein branch embolization agents in inducing compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver and to offer a theoretic basis for clinical portal vein bran...AIM： To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different portal vein branch embolization agents in inducing compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver and to offer a theoretic basis for clinical portal vein branch embolization. METHODS： Forty-one adult dogs were included in the experiment and divided into four groups. Five dogs served as a control group, 12 as a gelfoam group, 12 as a coil-gelfoam group and 12 as an absolute ethanol group. Left portal vein embolization was performed in each group. The results from the embolization in each group using different embolic agents were compared. The safety of portal vein embolization （PVE） was evaluated by liver function test, computed tomography （CT） and digital subtraction angiography （DSA） of liver and portal veins. Statistical test of variance was performed to analyze the results. RESULTS： Gelfoam used for PVE was inefficient in recanalization of portal vein branch 4 wk after the procedure. The liver volume in groups of coil-gelfoam and absolute ethanol increased 25.1% and 33.18%, respectively. There was no evidence of recanalization of embolized portal vein, hepatic dysfunction, and portal hypertension in coil-gelfoam group and absolute ethanol group. CONCOUSION： Portal vein branch embolization using absolute ethanol and coil-gelfoam could induce atrophy of the embolized lobes and compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver. Gelfoam is an inefficient agent.展开更多
基金Supported by Scientific Research Foundation of Youth,Fujian Health Bureau,No.2004-1-5
文摘AIM： To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different portal vein branch embolization agents in inducing compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver and to offer a theoretic basis for clinical portal vein branch embolization. METHODS： Forty-one adult dogs were included in the experiment and divided into four groups. Five dogs served as a control group, 12 as a gelfoam group, 12 as a coil-gelfoam group and 12 as an absolute ethanol group. Left portal vein embolization was performed in each group. The results from the embolization in each group using different embolic agents were compared. The safety of portal vein embolization （PVE） was evaluated by liver function test, computed tomography （CT） and digital subtraction angiography （DSA） of liver and portal veins. Statistical test of variance was performed to analyze the results. RESULTS： Gelfoam used for PVE was inefficient in recanalization of portal vein branch 4 wk after the procedure. The liver volume in groups of coil-gelfoam and absolute ethanol increased 25.1% and 33.18%, respectively. There was no evidence of recanalization of embolized portal vein, hepatic dysfunction, and portal hypertension in coil-gelfoam group and absolute ethanol group. CONCOUSION： Portal vein branch embolization using absolute ethanol and coil-gelfoam could induce atrophy of the embolized lobes and compensatory hypertrophy of the remnant liver. Gelfoam is an inefficient agent.
