Department of Vascular Surgery, Gusu School of Nanjing Medical University, Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou Municipal Hospital (HQ), Suzhou, China.
Department of Mathematics, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Biomed Mater Eng. 2024;35(1):27-37. doi: 10.3233/BME-230020.
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), which artificially creates a portocaval shunt to reduce portal venous pressure, has gradually become the primary treatment for portal hypertension (PH). However, there is no prefect shunting scheme in TIPS to balance the occurrence of postoperative complications and effective haemostasis.
To construct cirrhotic PH models and compare different shunting schemes in TIPS.
Three cases of cirrhotic PH with different liver volumes were selected for enhanced computed tomography scanning. The models for different shunting schemes were created using Mimics software, and following FLUENT calculation, all the models were imported into the software computational fluid dynamic-post for processing. In each shunting scheme, the differences in portal vein pressure, hepatic blood perfusion and blood flow from the superior mesenteric vein in the shunt tract were compared. The coefficient G was adapted to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages.
(1) Concerning the precise location of the shunt tract, the wider the diameter of the shunt tract, the lower the pressure of the portal vein and the lesser the hepatic blood perfusion. Meanwhile, the pressure drop objective was not achieved with the 6 mm-diameter shunting scheme. (2) The 8 mm-diameter shunting scheme through the left portal vein (LPV) had the highest coefficient G.
The 8 mm-diameter shunting scheme through the LPV may demonstrate a superior effect and prognosis in TIPS procedures.
经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)通过人为建立门腔分流来降低门静脉压力,已逐渐成为门静脉高压症(PH)的主要治疗方法。然而,TIPS 中并没有完美的分流方案来平衡术后并发症的发生和有效的止血效果。
构建肝硬化 PH 模型并比较 TIPS 中的不同分流方案。
选择 3 例不同肝体积的肝硬化 PH 患者进行增强 CT 扫描。使用 Mimics 软件创建不同分流方案的模型,通过 FLUENT 计算,将所有模型导入软件 computational fluid dynamic-post 进行处理。在每种分流方案中,比较分流道中门静脉压力、肝血流灌注和来自肠系膜上静脉的血流差异。采用系数 G 来评估优缺点。
(1)就分流道的精确位置而言,分流道直径越宽,门静脉压力越低,肝血流灌注越少。同时,6mm 直径的分流方案无法达到降压目标。(2)通过左门静脉(LPV)的 8mm 直径分流方案具有最高的系数 G。
LPV 直径为 8mm 的分流方案在 TIPS 手术中可能具有更好的效果和预后。