Safety and efficacy of transhepatic and transsplenic access for endovascular management of portal vein complications after liver transplantation

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular management of the portal vein (PV) via percutaneous transsplenic access versus percutaneous transhepatic access in liver transplantation (LT) recipients. A total of 18 patients who underwent endovascular management of PV via percutaneous transhepatic (n = 8) and transsplenic (n = 10) access were enrolled. Transsplenic access was chosen if the spleen was located in a normal position, the splenic vein (SpV) was preserved, and the target lesion did not involve confluence of the superior mesenteric and SpVs. Accessibility of the percutaneous transsplenic puncture was confirmed via ultrasound (US) in the angiography suite. All procedures were performed under local anesthesia. Percutaneous transhepatic or transsplenic access was performed using a 21‐gauge Chiba needle under US and fluoroscopic guidance, followed by balloon angioplasty, stent placement, or variceal embolization. The access tract was embolized using coils and a mixture (1:2) of glue and ethiodized oil. Transhepatic or transsplenic access was successfully achieved in all patients. A total of 12 patients underwent stent placement; 3 had balloon angioplasty only; 2 had variceal embolization only; and 1 had variceal embolization followed by successful stent placement. Regarding major complications, 1 patient experienced a SpV tear with extravasation during transsplenic balloon angioplasty, which was successfully managed using temporary balloon inflation, followed by transfusion. Clinical success was achieved in 9 of 11 (82%) patients who exhibited clinical manifestations. The remaining 7 patients who underwent prophylactic endovascular management were healthy. In conclusion, endovascular management of PV via percutaneous transsplenic access is a relatively safe and effective alternative that does not damage the liver grafts of LT recipients. Liver Transplantation 23 1133–1142 2017 AASLD.

This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit: