Fulenwider J T, Nordlinger B M, Millikan W J, Sones P J, Warren W D
Ann Surg. 1979 Mar;189(3):257-68. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197903000-00001.
Much confusion regarding the hemodynamics following interposition mesosystemic shunts prevails. Many authorities have claimed that portal venous perfusion continues following interposition mesocaval shunts. In 1971, a prospective, randomized trial comparing the distal splenorenal shunt with a variety of interposition mesosystemic shunts (primarily mesocaval or mesorenal) was begun. Visceral angiography was utilized to assess the early and late postoperative hemodynamic changes following both selective and nonselective shunts. None of the patients with patent interposition shunts retained portal perfusion present preoperatively. Searching for an explanation for this hemodynamic discrepancy, we examined two patients of the randomized trial angiographically. Both patients had excellent portal perfusion preoperatively, yet following interposition shunting (one mesocaval and one splenocaval), neither maintained portal perfusion of the liver. Celiac artery injections produced opacification of the entire splenoportal axis; however, it is shown that such portal venous opacification occurred in a retrograde direction by selective hepatic arterial injections demonstrating hepatofugal portal venous flow. Additionally, two nonrandomized patients received interposition mesorenal shunts and exemplify this phenomenon, entitled "portal pseudoperfusion". The explanation for conflicting literature reports lies in the misinterpretation of venous phase celiac and non-selective SMA arteriography in determining the direction of portal flow. A narrative of preoperative and postoperative angiograms of four patients will clarify the mechanism of "portal pseudoperfusion" and demonstrate that interposition shunts totally siphon portal venous perfusion. Clues to the detection and techniques to avoid this phenomenon will be presented.
关于间置式中系统分流术后的血流动力学存在很多混淆之处。许多权威人士声称,间置式中腔分流术后门静脉灌注仍会持续。1971年,一项前瞻性随机试验开始进行,比较远端脾肾分流术与各种间置式中系统分流术(主要是中腔或中肾分流术)。利用内脏血管造影术评估选择性和非选择性分流术后早期和晚期的血流动力学变化。所有间置式分流术通畅的患者术后均未保留术前存在的门静脉灌注。为了解释这种血流动力学差异,我们对随机试验中的两名患者进行了血管造影检查。两名患者术前门静脉灌注均良好,但在进行间置式分流术后(一例为中腔分流,一例为脾腔分流),均未维持肝脏的门静脉灌注。腹腔动脉注射使整个脾门静脉轴显影;然而,通过选择性肝动脉注射显示肝外门静脉血流,表明这种门静脉显影是逆行发生的。此外,两名非随机患者接受了间置式中肾分流术,也证实了这种名为“门静脉假性灌注”的现象。文献报道相互矛盾的原因在于在确定门静脉血流方向时对腹腔动脉和非选择性肠系膜上动脉造影静脉期的错误解读。对四名患者术前和术后血管造影的叙述将阐明“门静脉假性灌注”的机制,并表明间置式分流术完全虹吸门静脉灌注。将介绍检测这种现象的线索和避免该现象的技术。