Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 May;165(5):970-977.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.10.036. Epub 2018 Dec 7.

Passive mesenterico-saphenous shunt: An alternative to portocaval anastomosis for tailored portal decompression during liver transplantation

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Passive mesenterico-saphenous shunt: An alternative to portocaval anastomosis for tailored portal decompression during liver transplantation

François Faitot et al. Surgery. 2019 May.

Abstract

Background: Temporary portocaval shunt has a positive impact on short-term outcomes after liver transplantation. An alternative to temporary portocaval shunt is a distal passive decompression through mesenterico-saphenous shunt. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of these two types of surgical portosystemic shunt and discuss their respective place during the anhepatic phase.

Methods: Patients transplanted with portal decompression during a 4-year period were included. Patients were compared according to two types of surgical decompression techniques: temporary portocaval shunt (n = 44) and mesenterico-saphenous shunt (n = 77). Spontaneous >5-mm portosystemic shunts were described as absent, nonpersistent, distal, or proximal. Intraoperative portal pressure variations and inhospital course were compared between the two groups, with special attention on the impact of competing spontaneous and surgical shunts.

Results: Mesenterico-saphenous shunt and temporary portocaval shunt showed a comparable hemodynamic efficiency, with no significant difference in terms of portal pressure variations. We found no significant difference in terms of reperfusion syndrome (P = .956), transfusion rate (P = .575), renal failure (P = .239) nor early allograft dysfunction (P = .976). There was a significantly higher risk of early allograft dysfunction when competing surgical and spontaneous shunts were used (P = .002) with a lesser hemodynamic efficiency (analysis of variance test; P = .04).

Conclusion: Portacaval or mesenterico-saphenous shunts offer similar hemodynamic efficiency without impacting the outcomes after liver transplantation. Their respective place and the place of portal decompression should be discussed regarding the presence of portal thrombosis and pre-existing portosystemic shunts. Evaluation of the anatomy and the efficiency of these shunts may guide tailored portal decompression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms