R N White1, A T Parry2, C Shales2. 1. School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, LE 12 5RD, UK. 2. Willows Referral Service, Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the implications of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt morphology for the chosen site of shunt closure in dogs and cats. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of dogs and cats managed for congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts. RESULTS: In total, 54 dogs and 10 cats met the inclusion criteria, revealing five distinct shunt types: left gastrophrenic, right gastrocaval (types Ai, Aii and Aiii), splenocaval, colocaval and left gastro-azygos. Without exception, findings of computed tomography angiography and direct gross observations at the time of surgery confirmed four consistent sites of communication between the anomalous shunting vessel and the systemic venous system: the caudal vena cava at the level of the epiploic foramen; the left phrenic vein at the level of the oesophageal hiatus; the azygos vein at the level of the aortic hiatus; and the caudal vena cava or iliac vein at the level of the 6th or 7th lumbar vertebrae. The use of intraoperative mesenteric portography was effective for confirming that at the time of surgery all portal tributary vessels were proximal to the point of shunt attenuation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirmed that for the common types of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts there were only four consistent sites of communication between the shunt and the systemic venous system. This information supports the use of a systematic approach for the location and attenuation of shunts in dogs and cats.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the implications of extrahepatic portosystemic shunt morphology for the chosen site of shunt closure in dogs and cats. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of dogs and cats managed for congenital extrahepatic portosystemic shunts. RESULTS: In total, 54 dogs and 10 cats met the inclusion criteria, revealing five distinct shunt types: left gastrophrenic, right gastrocaval (types Ai, Aii and Aiii), splenocaval, colocaval and left gastro-azygos. Without exception, findings of computed tomography angiography and direct gross observations at the time of surgery confirmed four consistent sites of communication between the anomalous shunting vessel and the systemic venous system: the caudal vena cava at the level of the epiploic foramen; the left phrenic vein at the level of the oesophageal hiatus; the azygos vein at the level of the aortic hiatus; and the caudal vena cava or iliac vein at the level of the 6th or 7th lumbar vertebrae. The use of intraoperative mesenteric portography was effective for confirming that at the time of surgery all portal tributary vessels were proximal to the point of shunt attenuation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirmed that for the common types of extrahepatic portosystemic shunts there were only four consistent sites of communication between the shunt and the systemic venous system. This information supports the use of a systematic approach for the location and attenuation of shunts in dogs and cats.