Roberto Cirocchi1, Vito D'Andrea2, Augusto Lauro3, Claudio Renzi4, Brandon Michael Henry5, Krzysztof Andrzej Tomaszewski6, Mario Rende7, Massimo Lancia8, Luigi Carlini9, Sara Gioia10, Justus Randolph11. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Perugia, Piazza dell'Università 1, 06100, Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: roberto.cirocchi@unipg.it. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: vito.dandrea@uniroma1.it. 3. Department of Emergency Surgery, University of Bologna, S.Orsola Malpighi, 40127, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: augustola@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Perugia, Piazza dell'Università 1, 06100, Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: renzicla@virgilio.it. 5. International Evidence-Based Anatomy Working Group, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 12 Kopernika, Street 31-034, Kraków, Poland; Division of Cardiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. Electronic address: bmhenry55@gmail.com. 6. International Evidence-Based Anatomy Working Group, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 12 Kopernika, Street 31-034, Kraków, Poland; Department of Anatomy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 12 Kopernika Street, 31-034, Krakow, Poland. Electronic address: krzysztof.tomaszewski@uj.edu.pl. 7. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Perugia, Piazza dell'Università 1, 06100, Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: mario.rende@unipg.it. 8. Section of Legal Medicine, University of Perugia, Terni, 05100, Italy. Electronic address: massimo.lancia@unipg.it. 9. Section of Legal Medicine, University of Perugia, Terni, 05100, Italy. Electronic address: carlini.luigi@virgilio.it. 10. Section of Legal Medicine, University of Perugia, Terni, 05100, Italy. Electronic address: s.gioia@aospterni.it. 11. Georgia Baptist College of Nursing, Mercer University, 3001 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. Electronic address: randolph_jj@mercer.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The common hepatic artery (CHA) is the main arterial supply to the liver. Common classifications of the anatomical variations of the celiac trunk have only marginally described the CHA. Currently, the only classification addressing anatomical variants in cases of CHA absence from the celiac trunk is that reported by Huang et al. In this systematic review, the prevalence of these variations, according to Huang's classification, have been analyzed. METHODS: The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018096679). The risk of bias was assessed using the AQUA tool. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included in the review (26,250 participants). The overall pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) of an absent CHA was 3.1%. Of those participants who underwent preoperative radiological evaluation, the overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.8% for subjects who were evaluated via angiography and 3.0% for participants who underwent angio-CT evaluation. The overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.9% in cadavers and 3.2% in participants evaluated surgically. Type I or Type II aberrations were the most common; in participants with CHA aberrations, 65.4% of those participants had either Type I or Type II aberrations. CONCLUSIONS: The overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.1%, a result representing a significant, common anatomical variation. Our study revealed that an absence of a CHA was associated with a replaced CHA. The most common arterial variant was a replaced CHA originating from the Superior Mesenteric Artery and running across the anterior or posterior side of the pancreas (i.e., Types I and II).
INTRODUCTION: The common hepatic artery (CHA) is the main arterial supply to the liver. Common classifications of the anatomical variations of the celiac trunk have only marginally described the CHA. Currently, the only classification addressing anatomical variants in cases of CHA absence from the celiac trunk is that reported by Huang et al. In this systematic review, the prevalence of these variations, according to Huang's classification, have been analyzed. METHODS: The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018096679). The risk of bias was assessed using the AQUA tool. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included in the review (26,250 participants). The overall pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) of an absent CHA was 3.1%. Of those participants who underwent preoperative radiological evaluation, the overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.8% for subjects who were evaluated via angiography and 3.0% for participants who underwent angio-CT evaluation. The overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.9% in cadavers and 3.2% in participants evaluated surgically. Type I or Type II aberrations were the most common; in participants with CHA aberrations, 65.4% of those participants had either Type I or Type II aberrations. CONCLUSIONS: The overall PPE of an absent CHA was 3.1%, a result representing a significant, common anatomical variation. Our study revealed that an absence of a CHA was associated with a replaced CHA. The most common arterial variant was a replaced CHA originating from the Superior Mesenteric Artery and running across the anterior or posterior side of the pancreas (i.e., Types I and II).