François Faitot1, Pietro Addeo2, Camille Besch3, Baptiste Michard3, Constantin Oncioiu3, Bernard Ellero3, Marie-Lorraine Woehl-Jaeglé3, Philippe Bachellier3. 1. Hepatobiliopancreatic Surgery and Transplantation Department, Hopital de Hautepierre, Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, France; Laboratoire ICube, UMR7357, University of Strasbourg, France. Electronic address: francois.faitot@chru-strasbourg.fr. 2. Hepatobiliopancreatic Surgery and Transplantation Department, Hopital de Hautepierre, Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, France; Laboratoire ICube, UMR7357, University of Strasbourg, France. 3. Hepatobiliopancreatic Surgery and Transplantation Department, Hopital de Hautepierre, Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, France.
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.
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.