Journal List > Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg > v.27(4) > 1516084967

Das, Manadal, Das, Biswas, Gupta, Mukherjee, and Ray: Surgical outcome of extrahepatic portal venous obstruction: Audit from a tertiary referral centre in Eastern India

Abstract

Backgrounds/Aims

Extra hepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO) is the most common cause of portal hypertension in Indian children. While endoscopy is the primary modality of management, a subset of patients require surgery. This study aims to report the short- and long-term outcomes of EHPVO patients managed surgically.

Methods

All the patients with EHPVO who underwent surgery between August 2007 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative complications were classified after Clavien–Dindo. Binary logistic regression in Wald methodology was used to determine the predictive factors responsible for unfavourable outcome.

Results

Total of 202 patients with EHPVO were operated. Mean age of patients was 20.30 ± 9.96 years, and duration of illness, 90.05 ± 75.13 months. Most common indication for surgery was portal biliopathy (n = 59, 29.2%), followed by bleeding (n = 50, 24.8%). Total of 166 patients (82.2%) had shunt procedure. Splenectomy with esophagogastric devascularization was the second most common surgery (n = 20, 9.9%). Nine major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo > 3) were observed in 8 patients (4.0%), including 1 (0.5%) operative death. After a median follow-up of 56 months (15−156 months), 166 patients (82.2%) had favourable outcome. In multivariate analysis, associated splenic artery aneurysm (p = 0.007), isolated gastric varices (p = 0.004), preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and stenting (p = 0.015), and shunt occlusion (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of unfavourable long-term outcome.

Conclusions

Surgery in EHPVO is safe, affords excellent short- and long-term outcome in patients with symptomatic EHPVO, and may be considered for secondary prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION

Extra hepatic portal venous obstruction (EHPVO) is the most common cause of non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH) in Indian children, particularly affecting lower socio-economic strata [1]. Neonatal and childhood septic conditions, and prothrombotic disorders are some of the suspected reasons [2]. Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is most common presentation of EHPVO. Treatment is mainly endotherapy, though some may require surgical intervention. Surgery in the form of non-selective portosystemic shunts (PSS) or esophagogastric devascularization is a valid option.
The aim of this article is to report the short- and long-term outcomes of surgery for EHPVO from a newly-established GI Surgery centre in Eastern India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study. All the patients with EHPVO, who underwent surgical management between August, 2007 and December, 2021 in the Department of Surgical Gastroenterology of our institute were included in the current study. The Institutional Ethics Committee approved our study (Memo No- IPGME&R/IEC/2023/114, dated- 04/02/2023), and waived the need for informed consent for the retrospective nature of the study. This study was registered at the Thai Clinical Trials Registry, and was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki (TCTR20230209001).
EHPVO patients requiring surgical procedure not related to portal hypertension (PHT) (n = 3), patients with portal biliopathy (PB) having no shuntable veins on imaging (n = 4), patients with isolated left-sided PHT (n = 3) or portal cavernoma due to iatrogenic portal vein (PV) injury (n = 4), those with suboptimal information (n = 7) or lost to follow-up (n = 13) or who refused surgery (n = 5) were excluded from analysis (Fig. 1). This study focused on 90-day (d) mortality as the primary end point. Secondary endpoints included major indications for surgery, type of surgery performed, 90-d postoperative complications, shunt patency rate, incidence of re-bleeding, need for further intervention or surgery, and long-term outcome.

Definitions

Portal biliopathy refers to abnormalities of the entire biliary tract, including intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts, cystic duct, and gallbladder in patients with PHT [3]. On cholangiogram, dilated intrahepatic biliary radicles, smooth indentations or impressions on extrahepatic bile duct, ductal angulations, ectasias, strictures, stones, filling defects, and pericholecystic and/or pericholedochal varices are suggestive findings [4]. Patients with features of PB only on cholangiogram were considered asymptomatic, and along with corroborative symptoms, like jaundice and/or cholangitis, symptomatic. Mere presence of gall stones was not enough to establish PB.
Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo system. Clavien–Dindo > 3 was considered major complication.
Ninety-day postoperative mortality refers to death within 90 d after surgery, as either an inpatient or outpatient [5].
Long-term outcome was classified according to the persistence of symptoms related to disease or any surgical or non-surgical intervention required. Patients with favourable outcome were supposed to have none, while those with unfavourable ones have either.

Indications for surgery

EHPVO patients with failed secondary prophylaxis for bleeding and patients symptomatic with PB, hypersplenism, splenomegaly, growth retardation, and biliary lithiasis were operated. Patients on secondary prophylaxis, if developed gastric varices (GV), were also considered for surgery. Patients were again subdivided into favourable and unfavourable long-term outcome group to look for risk association and outcome difference.
Operative indications were defined by a multidisciplinary team of gastroenterologist, radiologist, and GI surgeon (Fig. 2). US Doppler was the most commonly performed investigation. A contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) was often added to precisely delineate a shuntable vein, as being absent might offer little or no benefit, particularly in the cases of symptomatic PB (Fig. 3A). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), not a routine, was performed in a few cases of suspected PB (Fig. 3B).

Surgery

Apart from planned mesocaval shunt, all patients underwent laparotomy through left subcostal with midline extension. Lesser sac was opened, and splenic artery ligated in continuity. Highly vascular splenorenal ligament was divided using harmonic scalpel, bipolar electrocautery, and ligatures. Splenic hilum was then dissected, polar tributaries of splenic vein (SV) were ligated, and divided. Splenectomy was then completed, and SV separated from dorsal surface of pancreas for 4−6 cm. Left renal vein was then exposed for 4−5 cm. A proximal splenorenal shunt (PSRS) was performed using 6-0 or 7-0 polypropelene suture, ensuring maximum possible shunt diameter (Fig. 4A). If there was no shuntable vein, esophagogastric devascularization involving proximal half of stomach and distal (7−8 cm) of esophagus was contemplated. In emergency situation with ongoing bleeding, particularly from an isolated gastric varix (IGV), often required a gastrostomy with direct ligation of varices (Fig. 4B). Long midline incision was preferred for mesocaval shunt. For interposition graft, we used right internal jugular vein (Fig. 4C) or engorged right colic vein; in the later, we could avoid an anastomosis with superior mesenteric vein (SMV). Some patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis without any varices or biliopathy were safely treated by open cholecystectomy.
All patients were followed up 3 monthly for 2 years, and then 6 monthly for the next 3 years. An imaging, either US Doppler or CECT abdomen, was performed 6 months after surgery to look for shunt patency. An upper GI endoscopy was performed if clinically indicated, or in the presence of a shunt thrombosis. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stenting and/or hepaticojejunostomy was/were needed for PB patients with persistent symptoms.

Data collections

Data was retrieved from our prospectively maintained GI surgery database. Age, sex, age at index presentation, duration of illness, index presentations, bleeding episodes, blood transfusions, number, compliance and effectiveness of different endoscopic manoeuvre with findings, clinical presentations, complete blood count, liver function test, and associated conditions related to PHT were noted as preoperative data. Operative data included main indications for surgery, type of surgery, shunt size, utilisation of shuntable vein, operative blood loss and transfusion requirement, and duration of surgery. Splanchnic and systemic venous blood pressure were not measured routinely. Postoperative data included, length of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. In follow-up, incidence of re-bleeding, shunt patency, non-surgical or surgical interventions if required and long-term outcome were noted.

Statistical analysis

Data entry was done in MS Excel sheet. All statistical analyses were carried out by SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS Inc.). All continuous variables were assessed for normality using Shapiro–Wilk’s test. If the data were normally distributed, they were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation, otherwise median (interquartile range). All the categorical variables were expressed either as percentage or proportion. Comparison of all the normally distributed continuous variables was done by either independent sample t-test or analysis of variance based on the groups. For the non-normally distributed variables, statistical comparisons were made by Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal–Wallis H test. Comparisons of categorical variables were made by chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, based on the number of observations. Binary logistic regression in Wald methodology was used to determine the predictive factors responsible for unfavourable outcome. All p-values < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 241 patients, 202 (83.8%) fulfilled the criteria, and underwent surgery related to PHT. One-hundred and nine (54.0%) patients were female. Mean age was 20.30 ± 9.96 years. Mean age of onset of symptoms related to EHPVO was 12.88 ± 10.71 years. Bleeding (n = 165, 81.7%) was the most common index presentation, followed by PB (n = 18, 8.9%). Only 8.9% patients (n = 18) had associated comorbidities. Average duration of illness before undergoing surgery was 90.05 ± 75.13 months. Number of bleeding episodes was 4.15 ± 6.79, with average number of endoscopic sessions (9.26 ± 8.88). Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) was the most commonly used manoeuvre (n = 93, 46.0%) to control bleeding, followed by combinations of EVL, endoscopic sclerotherapy (EST), or cyanoacrylate glue (n = 66, 32.7%). Endoscopic oesophageal varix (EV) obliteration was achieved in 106 (52.5%) patients. Twenty-two patients (10.9%) had undergone ERC and stenting before surgery. Jaundice was present in 64 (31.7%) patients, and cholangitis in 27 (13.4%). Forty-two (20.8%) patients had cholelithiasis, but 30 had symptoms (14.9%). Bile duct stone was found in 19 patients (9.4%). Secondary biliary cirrhosis (SBC) was found in 5 patients (2.5%). Five (2.5%) patients had atrophic liver. Ascites in this study group (n = 17, 8.4%) was found in cases of acute or frequent bleeders, with no underlying liver pathology. Most common clinical presentation was related to bleeding. One-hundred and seven patients had bleeding (53.0%) before surgery. While on secondary prophylaxis, 64 patients (31.7%) developed GV. PB was present in 98 (48.5%) patients, of whom 57 were symptomatic (28.2%). In endoscopic finding, majority had grade 3 EV at index endoscopy (n = 121, 59.9%), whereas before surgery, 120 patients (59.4%) had none (Table 1).
PB was the major indication for surgery (n = 59, 29.2%), followed by bleeding (n = 50, 24.8%) and appearance of GV (n = 20, 9.9%). Only 8.9% (n = 18) cases were performed on an emergency basis. Shuntable vein was found in 176 cases (87.1%), and utilised in 166 patients (94.3%). PSS were not established in 10 patients with shuntable vein, because of either inadvertent injury (n = 7), or hemodynamic instability (n = 3). Most commonly performed surgery was PSRS (n = 162, 80.2%), followed by splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization (n = 20, 9.9%). Average PSRS diameter was 11.90 ± 4.29 mm. Mean duration of surgery was 275.97 ± 79.81 minute, and blood loss, 365.69 ± 295.31 mL. Average postoperative stay was 7.35 ± 3.98 d. Fifty-five postoperative complications developed in 50 patients 24.8%. Forty-two patients (20.8%) had 46 minor complications (Clavien–Dindo < 3). Nine major complications (Clavien–Dindo > 3) were encountered in 8 patients (4.0%) including 1 (0.5%) 90-d operative mortality in a patient with intra-abdominal bleeding with multiorgan failure (Table 2, 3).
Median duration of follow-up was 56 months (15−156 months) in 194 patients, excluding 8 cases of overall mortality. Of 202 patients, 6 patients (3.0%) had rebleeding. One patient (0.5%) with recurrent GI bleeding required surgical devascularization, one died of bleeding, and the other 4 were managed endoscopically. One of the endoscopically-treated rebleeding patient also died due to uncontrolled bleeding. At or after 6 months of surgery, shunt patency was observed in 155 of 166 patients (93.4%). Twelve patients (6.2%) required endoscopic variceal management. Postoperative ERC and stenting were performed in 10 (5.0%) patients. Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (Fig. 4D) was the most common 2nd surgery (n = 6, 3.1%); one of them died of cirrhosis, hence excluded from long-term outcome analysis. Five patients required cholecystectomy after shunt procedure, 3 of them were managed laparoscopically. One patient with large esophageal varices following failed shunt procedure required mesocaval shunt. Average bleeding during subsequent surgery was 477.27 ± 278.71 mL. During follow-up beyond 6 months of surgery, 7 patients died due to different causes other than primary surgery (Table 4).
Of 194 cases presently surviving, 166 of them (85.6%) remained asymptomatic to date. The other 28 patients required some form of intervention, as stated previously. In univariate analysis, symptomatic patients requiring different interventions after primary surgery revealed significant association with several preoperative factors, like poor compliance with endotreatment (p = 0.022), cholelithiasis (p = 0.043), choledocholithiasis (p = 0.003), cholangitis (p = 0.014), need for ERC and stenting (p = 0.002), PB (p = 0.004), presence of splenic artery aneurysm (SAA) (p = 0.010) and IGV (p = 0.023), high serum bilirubin (p = 0.003), and alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.023). Higher operative blood loss (p = 0.009) and postoperative shunt failure (p < 0.001) also showed significant difference across favourable and unfavourable outcome groups (Table 5). But in multivariate analysis, factors other than the presence of SAA (p = 0.007; confidence interval [CI], 0.00−0.31) and IGV (p = 0.004; CI, 0.01−0.43), need for preoperative ERC and stenting (p = 0.015; CI, 0.01−0.59), and shunt occlusion (p < 0.001; CI, 0.00−0.19), failed to prove any significance (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

Pathophysiology

EHPVO is a childhood vascular disorder of the liver. There is chronic blockage of the extra-hepatic PV with or without the involvement of intra-hepatic PV radicles or splenic or SMV, resulting in portal cavernoma and varices. Isolated splanchnic venous or intra-hepatic PV thrombosis alone is not considered as EHPVO [6]. Liver function is mostly well preserved, unless compromised by reduced hepatic cell mass and synthetic dysfunction, as rarely seen with advanced age, prolonged duration of disease, and development of SBC from PB [7]. Neonatal exchange transfusion through umbilical catheterisation, omphalitis, congenital abnormalities, childhood sepsis, and prothrombotic disorders, like deficiencies in the naturally occurring anticoagulants (protein c, protein s, and antithrombin III) and factor V leiden and prothrombin gene mutations, are some of the suspected reasons [2].

Epidemiology & features

In developing nations, EHPVO is a major cause of PHT (54%) and upper GI bleeding (68%−84%) in children [8,9]. In the West, EHPVO, though rare, is the second most frequent cause of PHT in adults [10], whereas in children, it is less common (11%) [11]. Patients with EHPVO mostly present with variceal bleeding in their 1st or 2nd decade of life [12]. In our series, mean age of onset was 12.88 ± 10.71 years, and age at the time of surgery was 20.30 ± 9.96 years, the difference roughly corroborating the onset of PB. Adults are often asymptomatic, or present with PB [13]. PB as a sequel of EHPVO usually affects people at an interval of 6−14 years in 80%−100% cases, but becomes symptomatic only in 5%−30% cases [4,14], as found in the current study (symptomatic PB, 28.2%). Hypersplenism, symptomatic splenomegaly, biliary lithiasis, and growth retardations are other presentations (Table 1) [15].

Endoscopy

EST or EVL is treatment of choice in acute variceal haemorrhage, though nearly 5% of cases may require surgical intervention in acute setting following failed endo and pharmacotherapy [1]. Endoscopy has largely replaced surgery, the only available options until the mid-20th century, in managing acute bleeding and preventing recurrence [16]. Nearly 90% cases of acute variceal bleeding may be controlled by EST or EVL [6]. As secondary prophylactic measure, EST or EVL or their combinations may ensure variceal eradication in 80%−90% of patients [16]. Recurrence rate after EVL/EST or combination may be lower than 10% [17,18]. But endoscopic management does not deal with underlying PHT; that may increase the incidences of gastric and ectopic varices and portal gastropathy, which often bleed torrentially, and are difficult to manage endoscopically [19,20]. Moreover, the ideal situation is not always available, due to poor socioeconomic condition of the patient, remote place, unavailability of blood products, and poor access to modern endoscopy services; the recurrence may reach 40% [21].

Imaging

Ultrasound Doppler of splenoportal axis (SPA) is the investigation of choice, and it can detect the presence of portal cavernoma replacing variable length of PV, SMV, and SV with sensitivity and specificity > 95% [13]. It also shows condition of the liver and the presence of biliary lithiasis. Ninety-nine percent of patients in our series have preoperative ultrasound Doppler. The status of a shuntable vein and precise anatomy of SPA, particularly in cases of PB, have considerable impact on surgical decision, and here, CT/MR portography plays an important role [22].

Surgery

The main indications of surgery in EHPVO are acute variceal bleeding not controlled by endoscopy and secondary prophylaxis of GI bleeding, particularly with failed eradication. Other indications are PB, symptomatic hypersplenism, symptomatic splenomegaly, and growth retardation, as these are not reversed by endoscopy [15], whereas PSS may help [23]. In a study of 20 patients with GV undergoing PSRS, only 2 patients experienced rebleeding [24]. Complications of endoscopic procedures were some associated important issues in current surgical cohort, like post-EST oesophageal stricture (n = 5), post-EVL ulcers (n = 5), ERC papillotomy bleeding (n = 3), and haemobilia (n = 1) in some symptomatic PB patients, and GV rupture during glue injection (n = 1). Surgical options are PSS, like PSRS or mesocaval shunt or Meso-Rex shunt, and esophagogastric devascularization with or without esophagogastric transection. Surgery may be the preferred approach for secondary prophylaxis, as it does not require stringent follow-up as required in endoscopic management [15]. A PSS is preferred to devascularization procedure wherever feasible for lower re-bleeding rate [25,26]. In the present series, 94.3% patients (n = 166) with shuntable vein (n = 176) underwent PSS. PSRS had been our preferred shunt procedure, if possible. Four patients required mesocaval shunt. In Meso-Rex shunt, an autologous internal jugular or great saphenous vein interposition graft is used to bridge the SMV and intrahepatic left PV within the Rex recessus of the liver [27]. A few comparative studies between meso-Rex shunt and PSS revealed better outcome with the former, in terms of reversing coagulopathy and growth retardation [27-29]. But these studies mostly considered a distal splenorenal shunt as PSS procedure. The existing literature also did not compare PSRS with Rex shunt. Patients of meso-Rex shunt were also of a much younger age group at 2−12 years, compared to our cohort at 20.30 ± 9.96 years. A PSRS patient has to sacrifice spleen, but at the same time gets rid of symptomatic hypersplenism and splenomegaly [16]. Post-shunt encephalopathy is unlikely with meso-Rex shunt, as it does not divert liver from splanchnic circulation. Some large studies with PSRS have shown no post-shunt encephalopathy as well [30-33]. In a study with 31 patients with EHPVO, Superina et al. [34] found that meso-Rex shunt provided excellent relief symptoms along with liver growth and the normalization of coagulation parameters, and concluded that this surgery should be done at as early an age as possible. A Rex shunt was not performed in the current study, as we were not familiar with it, and patients were of older age group. In our series, patients having no shuntable vain or inadvertently injured ones, and those with unstable hemodynamic condition during surgery, underwent splenectomy and esophagogastric devascularization. Shunt size varied 4−40 mm. We have never encountered encephalopathy with larger shunts, due to well preserved hepatic function. Major postoperative complications and operative mortality are low with surgical candidates. Operative mortality was 0.5% in our series, comparable with the existing literature [35,36]. In those studies, emergency PSS had higher mortality (~10%). In emergency setting, we therefore preferred devascularization procedure to tedious PSS hemodynamically unstable patient.

Long-term outcome

In univariate analysis, unfavourable outcome was significantly associated with poor compliance to endotreatment, cholangitis, biliary lithiasis, associated SAA, PB, IGV, need for ERC, higher bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase level, higher operative blood loss, and shunt thrombosis. In multivariate analysis, associated SAA, IGV, need for ERC, and shunt patency showed significant difference in favourable and unfavourable outcome.
Probably in the presence of PHT, large natural PSS reduce SV resistance, thus triggering an increase of splenic arterial flow to increase SV flow and maintain portal pressure to perfuse liver [37]. This hyperkinetic splenic circulatory state may induce splenic arterial dilatation along with arterial medial layer degeneration, resulting in the formation of aneurysms in 7%−20% of patients with PHT [38,39].
Triphasic CT and Doppler ultrasound usually pick up SAA, but may miss small and leaking aneurysms [40]. Angiography, though a gold standard to localize and characterize the lesion, is used therapeutically before coil/glue embolization and stent exclusion [41,42]. In patients with PHT, associated SAA should be treated irrespective of size for higher incidence of spontaneous rupture. So, it is better for patients with EHPVO, when requiring surgery, to undergo simultaneous excision of the aneurysm, or ligation if multiple [43]. But a PSS procedure is often failed, due to tedious dissection, inability to get a good shuntable vein, and associated high per-operative bleeding [44]. We had 5 patients with SAA (2.5%) with average size of 4.5 cm, having shuntable veins in 4, PSRS being performed in 3, and follow-up shunt thrombosis in 2, further procedure required in 3, and 1 death. All of them underwent excision, and 3 of them, distal pancreatectomy. SAA probably reflects an advanced disease, difficult surgery, and therefore, high complications and worse outcome. Yet such patients should be offered surgery in an experienced centre with minimal morbidity and good outcome [45].
Natural history of IGV is poorly understood as to whether it may be an initial presentation or a later development, but it may be logical to predict its appearance in long-standing cases with multiple times endoscopic treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal varices. IGV1s affect fundal region of stomach, are more common in EHPVO, and are likely to bleed much more than IGV2s, the gastric antral ectopic variety [46]. Gastric veins from IGV1 are predominantly anastomose with left inferior phrenic vein (IPV) in postero-superior bare area of stomach, from where they decompress in IVC through gastrorenal shunt, often along with left adrenal vein (80%−85%) or a transverse gastrocaval shunt (10%−15%), according to difference in drainage of IPV, either in left renal vein or IVC [47]. IGV2 involves the gastroepiploic and pancreaticoduodenal venous system [48]. Sarin et al. [49] found IGV1 in 39.4% patients of EHPVO, and 78% of them had significant bleeding. A study from GB Pant Hospital, India, found that the amount (3.69 ± 1.91 mL) and sessions for glue injection (2.11 ± 0.97, range [1−7]) to eradicate IGV in EHPVO are significantly higher than that of cirrhotics [46]. In the present study, 22 patients had IGV, of which 20 had IGV1. Control of bleeding often seemed difficult, and emergency surgery was required in 7 cases (31.8 %), significantly higher than patients without IGV (6.1%, p ≤ 0.001). For the same reason, the incidence of PSS was significantly less in patients with IGV than those without (59.1% vs. 85%, p = 0.003). In our understanding, prolonged disease state, greater need for emergency surgery, and less percentage of PSS in patients with IGV offered poorer outcome (Fig. 3D).
The need for ERC and stenting surrogates symptomatic PB. Irregular strictures and dilatations of the extrahepatic biliary tree in patients with portal cavernoma favour biliary lithiasis in long-standing cases, resulting in pain, jaundice, and intermittent cholangitis [4,50]. Despite EHPVO being a childhood disease, and bleeding being the most common first presentation, in our series, for 22 patients who required preoperative ERC and stenting, the average age was 32.6 years, and most common index presentation was PB (n = 9, 50%), with age at index presentation being 24.9 years. Average duration of illness in this ERC group was 92.1 months in the present study, but it should be considered much more, as PB was the major index presentation, and the onset of EHPVO is supposed to be a decade earlier than PB. Surgical candidates for PB may have poorer outcome if requiring ERC and stenting in the preoperative period, as the biliary strictures are initially due to vascular compression; but later on, ischaemia, chronic inflammation, and fibrosis predominate, rendering strictures more resistant to reverse after PSS [50]. Ten out of 22 patients in the current study had bile duct stones, 20 had jaundice, and 12 had cholangitis, and it clearly reflected a long-standing nature. In the present study, it seemed that rather than preoperative ERC and stenting resulting in worse outcome, the group of patients of EHPVO who required preoperative ERC and stenting were probably the worst kind of symptomatic PB patients, and therefore contributed significantly to unfavourable outcome. Twenty patients underwent PSS, and had postoperative major complications (Clavien–Dindo > 3) in 5 (25.0%), including 1 operative mortality. Three patients in this ERC group had shunt thrombosis, 4 required subsequent ERC, and 1, hepaticojejunostomy. Three patients died in the long run due to unresolved cholangitis, with 1 having developed cirrhosis. Though shunt surgery was possible in the majority of cases (20 out of 22, 90.9%) of PB who had prior ERC in our study, outcome was worse in this subset, as shunt surgery might fail to relieve biliary strictures, due to fibrotic nature in long-standing cases [51].
Shunt thrombosis is one of the important post PSS complications, seen in nearly 5.6%–47% of cases [36,52,53]. In early postoperative period, probable causes of shunt thrombosis are small diameter shunt, poor SV backflow, improper lie, pathological SV wall, and difficulty in anastomosis; whereas at late phase, procoagulant disorder and post-splenectomy thrombocytosis play important negative role [52,54-57]. According to Bismuth, to avoid thrombosis, the shunt size should be > 10 mm [58], though in paediatric group of patients, it is often not feasible, and shunt size > 4 mm may show a good patency rate of 84%−96% [30]. In the present series, shunt diameter varied 4−40 mm. We tried to make the shunt aperture as large as possible, as we have never encountered post-shunt hepatic encephalopathy with non-selective shunts in EHPVO, as evidenced in the literature [30,31]. Of 11 patients who had shunt thrombosis, 1 had mesocaval shunt, while the other 10 had PSRS. One patient with symptomatic PB developed biliary cirrhosis, ascites, and cholangitis after PSRS thrombosis, and died. The other 9 patients with shunt thrombosis were followed-up. On follow-up US doppler/ CECT, if shunt thrombosis was found, patients underwent endoscopy to look for varices. Out of 9 patients, 3 (33.3%) remained asymptomatic. Four patients developed non-bleeding varices. One had rebleeding. All varices (n = 5, 55.6%) required endoscopic surveillance for at least 2 years post-detection. ERC was required in 1 case of newly developed PB after shunt thrombosis. A successful PSS mostly offers a one-time solution for EHPVO patients. The single RCT by Wani et al. [59] from India showed comparable mortality and treatment failure with EST and shunt surgery, but less rebleeding rate and blood transfusions in later group. Chaudhary et al. [16] recommended shunt surgery for secondary prophylaxis of all EHPVO patients in resource-limited developing countries where this entity is common. EHPVO patients with good shuntable veins, having surgical expertise available, may preferably be considered for PSS, as it may reduce the development of gastric and ectopic varices, and worsening of PB [6,13,60].
This study has some strengths and limitations. The strength is that it is one of the largest case series of PSS for EHPVO with low mortality, acceptable postoperative complications, and excellent long-term functional outcomes (Table 6), as compared to some other relevant studies [30-33,36,61,62]. But there are limitations. The analysis was made retrospectively. It was a pure surgical series, and therefore it cannot reflect the actual burden and morbidity of EHPVO, and no comparison could be made between endoscopic management and PSS. Data regarding growth retardation was not kept uniformly, therefore being omitted from outcome analysis. As PSS is a difficult procedure, over time the perfection in surgery and therefore the outcome improved, lacking uniformity. Lastly, it is a single-centre experience. This series lacks the experience of Rex shunt.

Conclusion

PSS affords excellent short- and long-term outcome in patients with symptomatic EHPVO, and may be considered for secondary prophylaxis if there are shuntable veins, and surgical expertise is available. Endoscopically non-reversible complications of EHPVO, like PB, hypersplenism, and huge splenomegaly, are better managed surgically. Even splenectomy and devascularization procedure offers good results in patients where PSS is not possible, except in patients with PB. SAA, IGV, and preoperative ERC probably reflect long-standing symptomatic EHPVO with worse surgical outcome, so early surgery in symptomatic cases may be recommended. A patent PSS mostly offers a one-time solution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. Arkadeep Dhali for his guidance regarding draft submission to the Ethics Committee and Clinical Trial Registry.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: SD, TSM. Data curation: SD, TSM, SD, JB, AG. Methodology: SD. Visualization: SD, SR. Writing - original draft: SD. Writing - review & editing: SM, SR.

REFERENCES

1. Sahni P, Parde GK, Nundy S. 1990; Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. Br J Surg. 77:1201–1202. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800771102. PMID: 2252992.
crossref
2. Jena SK, Mohanty M, Patra UC, Behera S. 2017; A study on demographic and clinical profile of children with extra hepatic portal venous obstruction and with special reference to thrombophilic factors. Int J Community Med Public Health. 4:640–645. DOI: 10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20170468.
crossref
3. Dhiman RK, Behera A, Chawla YK, Dilawari JB, Suri S. 2007; Portal hypertensive biliopathy. Gut. 56:1001–1008. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.103606. PMID: 17170017. PMCID: PMC1994341.
crossref
4. Premkumar M, Dhiman RK. 2021; Portal cavernoma cholangiopathy: Indian perspective. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 18:127–137. DOI: 10.1002/cld.1130. PMID: 34691399. PMCID: PMC8518339.
crossref
5. Mise Y, Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G, Parker NH, Conrad C, Aloia TA, et al. 2015; Ninety-day postoperative mortality is a legitimate measure of hepatopancreatobiliary surgical quality. Ann Surg. 262:1071–1078. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001048. PMID: 25590497. PMCID: PMC4633391.
crossref
6. Sarin SK, Sollano JD, Chawla YK, Amarapurkar D, Hamid S, Hashizume M, et al. Members of the APASL Working Party on Portal Hypertension. 2006; Consensus on extra-hepatic portal vein obstruction. Liver Int. 26:512–519. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2006.01269.x. PMID: 16761994.
crossref
7. Rangari M, Gupta R, Jain M, Malhotra V, Sarin SK. 2003; Hepatic dysfunction in patients with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. Liver Int. 23:434–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2003.00879.x. PMID: 14986818.
crossref
8. Yachha SK. 2002; Portal hypertension in children: an Indian perspective. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 17 Suppl 3:S228–S231. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.17.s3.5.x. PMID: 12472941.
crossref
9. Poddar U, Thapa BR, Rao KL, Singh K. 2008; Etiological spectrum of esophageal varices due to portal hypertension in Indian children: is it different from the West? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 23:1354–1357. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05102.x. PMID: 17683492.
crossref
10. Garcia-Pagán JC, Hernández-Guerra M, Bosch J. 2008; Extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis. Semin Liver Dis. 28:282–292. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1085096. PMID: 18814081.
crossref
11. Fagundes ED, Ferreira AR, Roquete ML, Penna FJ, Goulart EM, Figueiredo Filho PP, et al. 2008; Clinical and laboratory predictors of esophageal varices in children and adolescents with portal hypertension syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 46:178–183. DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e318156ff07. PMID: 18223377.
crossref
12. Weiss B, Shteyer E, Vivante A, Berkowitz D, Reif S, Weizman Z, et al. 2010; Etiology and long-term outcome of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children. World J Gastroenterol. 16:4968–4972. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i39.4968. PMID: 20954284. PMCID: PMC2957606.
crossref
13. Sarin SK, Agarwal SR. 2002; Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. Semin Liver Dis. 22:43–58. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-23206. PMID: 11928078.
crossref
14. Kumar M, Saraswat VA. 2014; Natural history of portal cavernoma cholangiopathy. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 4(Suppl 1):S62–S66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2013.08.003. PMID: 25755597. PMCID: PMC4244826.
crossref
15. Mangla V, Pal S, Sahni P. 2016; Surgery for non-cirrhotic portal hypertension: current status. Trop Gastroenterol. 37:152–155. DOI: 10.7869/tg.348.
crossref
16. Chaudhary N, Mehrotra S, Srivastava M, Nundy S. 2013; Management of bleeding in extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. Int J Hepatol. 2013:784842. DOI: 10.1155/2013/784842. PMID: 23878740. PMCID: PMC3708426.
crossref
17. Poddar U, Thapa BR, Singh K. 2005; Band ligation plus sclerotherapy versus sclerotherapy alone in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. J Clin Gastroenterol. 39:626–629. DOI: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000170765.36825.66. PMID: 16000932.
crossref
18. Poddar U, Bhatnagar S, Yachha SK. 2011; Endoscopic band ligation followed by sclerotherapy: is it superior to sclerotherapy in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 26:255–259. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06397.x. PMID: 21261713.
crossref
19. Sharma AK, Rangam HK, Choubey RP. 2000; Splenectomy and lieno-renal shunt for extra hepatic portal venous obstruction. Indian Pediatr. 37:422–425. PMID: 10781238.
20. Poddar U, Thapa BR, Singh K. 2004; Frequency of gastropathy and gastric varices in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction treated with sclerotherapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 19:1253–1256. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03470.x. PMID: 15482531.
crossref
21. Itha S, Yachha SK. 2006; Endoscopic outcome beyond esophageal variceal eradication in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 42:196–200. DOI: 10.1097/01.mpg.0000189351.55666.45. PMID: 16456415.
crossref
22. Chaves IJ, Rigsby CK, Schoeneman SE, Kim ST, Superina RA, Ben-Ami T. 2012; Pre- and postoperative imaging and interventions for the meso-Rex bypass in children and young adults. Pediatr Radiol. 42:220–232. quiz 271–272. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-011-2283-0. PMID: 22037931.
crossref
23. Pal S, Mangla V, Radhakrishna P, Sahni P, Pande GK, Acharya SK, et al. 2013; Surgery as primary prophylaxis from variceal bleeding in patients with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 28:1010–1014. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12123. PMID: 23301629.
crossref
24. Anand U, Kumar R, Priyadarshi RN, Parasar K, John AG. 2020; Proximal splenorenal shunt surgery for bleeding gastric varices in non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. Cureus. 12:e10464. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10464. PMID: 33083167. PMCID: PMC7566982.
crossref
25. Zhang DC. 1991; [Hassab's procedure with or without lower esophageal transection in the treatment of portal hypertension. A prospective controlled study]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 29:561–563. 589–560. Chinese.
26. Nundy S, Tandon BN. 1980; Emergency operations for bleeding oesophageal varices-a case for doing splenectomy and lienorenal shunts. Trop Gastraenterol. 1:27.
27. Lautz TB, Keys LA, Melvin JC, Ito J, Superina RA. 2013; Advantages of the meso-Rex bypass compared with portosystemic shunts in the management of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children. J Am Coll Surg. 216:83–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.09.013. PMID: 23177370.
crossref
28. Khamag O, Numanoglu A, Rode H, Millar A, Cox S. 2023; Surgical management of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children: advantages of MesoRex shunt compared with distal splenorenal shunt. Pediatr Surg Int. 39:128. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-023-05411-3. PMID: 36795156. PMCID: PMC9935711.
crossref
29. Emre S, Dugan C, Frankenberg T, Hudgins LC, Gagliardi R, Artis AT, et al. 2009; Surgical portosystemic shunts and the Rex bypass in children: a single-centre experience. HPB (Oxford). 11:252–257. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00047.x. PMID: 19590656. PMCID: PMC2697896.
crossref
30. Prasad AS, Gupta S, Kohli V, Pande GK, Sahni P, Nundy S. 1994; Proximal splenorenal shunts for extrahepatic portal venous obstruction in children. Ann Surg. 219:193–196. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199402000-00011. PMID: 8129490. PMCID: PMC1243121.
31. Orloff MJ, Orloff MS, Rambotti M. 1994; Treatment of bleeding esophagogastric varices due to extrahepatic portal hypertension: results of portal-systemic shunts during 35 years. J Pediatr Surg. 29:142–151. discussion 151–154. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(94)90309-3. PMID: 8176584.
crossref
32. Mitra SK, Rao KL, Narasimhan KL, Dilawari JB, Batra YK, Chawla Y, et al. 1993; Side-to-side lienorenal shunt without splenectomy in noncirrhotic portal hypertension in children. J Pediatr Surg. 28:398–401. discussion 401–402. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(93)90239-H. PMID: 8468654.
33. Rao KL, Goyal A, Menon P, Thapa BR, Narasimhan KL, Chowdhary SK, et al. 2004; Extrahepatic portal hypertension in children: observations on three surgical procedures. Pediatr Surg Int. 20:679–684. DOI: 10.1007/s00383-004-1272-x. PMID: 15351894.
34. Superina R, Bambini DA, Lokar J, Rigsby C, Whitington PF. 2006; Correction of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis by the mesenteric to left portal vein bypass. Ann Surg. 243:515–521. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000205827.73706.97. PMID: 16552203. PMCID: PMC1448975.
35. Thomas V, Jose T, Kumar S. 2009; Natural history of bleeding after esophageal variceal eradication in patients with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction; a 20-year follow-up. Indian J Gastroenterol. 28:206–211. DOI: 10.1007/s12664-009-0086-0. PMID: 20425640.
crossref
36. Bismuth H, Franco D, Alagille D. 1980; Portal diversion for portal hypertension in children. The first ninety patients. Ann Surg. 192:18–24. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198007000-00003. PMID: 7406558. PMCID: PMC1344799.
crossref
37. Ohta M, Hashizume M, Ueno K, Tanoue K, Sugimachi K, Hasuo K. 1994; Hemodynamic study of splenic artery aneurysm in portal hypertension. Hepatogastroenterology. 41:181–184. PMID: 8056411.
38. Stanley JC, Fry WJ. 1974; Pathogenesis and clinical significance of splenic artery aneurysms. Surgery. 76:898–909. PMID: 4428355.
39. Boijsen E, Efsing HO. 1969; Aneurysm of the splenic artery. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 8:29–41. DOI: 10.1177/028418516900800105. PMID: 5800861. PMCID: PMC3788954.
crossref
40. Mattar SG, Lumsden AB. 1995; The management of splenic artery aneurysms: experience with 23 cases. Am J Surg. 169:580–584. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80225-6. PMID: 7771620.
crossref
41. McDermott VG, Shlansky-Goldberg R, Cope C. 1994; Endovascular management of splenic artery aneurysms and pseudoaneurysms. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 17:179–184. DOI: 10.1007/BF00571531. PMID: 7954570.
crossref
42. de Perrot M, Bühler L, Deléaval J, Borisch B, Mentha G, Morel P. 1998; Management of true aneurysms of the splenic artery. Am J Surg. 175:466–468. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00082-8. PMID: 9645773.
crossref
43. Qiu JF, Xu L, Wu ZY. 2004; Diagnosis and surgical treatment of giant splenic artery aneurysms with portal hypertension: report of 4 cases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 3:526–529. PMID: 15567738.
44. Puliyath N, Raj N, Sanyal S, Tripathy DK, Gupta R. 2021; Giant splenic artery aneurysm with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction - a rare entity: case report with literature review. J Med Evid. 2:182–184. DOI: 10.4103/JME.JME_59_20.
crossref
45. Mishra PK, Saluja SS, Sharma AK, Pattnaik P. 2012; Management of splenic artery aneurysm associated with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 11:330–333. DOI: 10.1016/S1499-3872(12)60170-2. PMID: 22672830.
crossref
46. Sharma BC, Varakanahalli S, Singh JP, Srivastava S. 2017; Gastric varices in cirrhosis vs. extrahepatic portal venous obstruction and response to endoscopic N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate injection. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 7:97–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2016.09.002. PMID: 28663672. PMCID: PMC5478943.
crossref
47. Johns TN, Evans BB. 1962; Collateral pathways in portal hypertension. Ann Surg. 155:838–845. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-196206000-00003. PMID: 14451980. PMCID: PMC1466170.
crossref
48. Sarin SK, Jain AK, Lamba GS, Gupta R, Chowdhary A. 2003; Isolated gastric varices: prevalence, clinical relevance and natural history. Dig Surg. 20:42–47. DOI: 10.1159/000068865. PMID: 12637804.
crossref
49. Sarin SK, Lahoti D, Saxena SP, Murthy NS, Makwana UK. 1992; Prevalence, classification and natural history of gastric varices: a long-term follow-up study in 568 portal hypertension patients. Hepatology. 16:1343–1349. DOI: 10.1002/hep.1840160607. PMID: 1446890.
crossref
50. Agarwal AK, Sharma D, Singh S, Agarwal S, Girish SP. 2011; Portal biliopathy: a study of 39 surgically treated patients. HPB (Oxford). 13:33–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00232.x. PMID: 21159101. PMCID: PMC3019539.
crossref
51. Bhatia V. 2014; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in portal cavernoma cholangiopathy - results from different studies and proposal for uniform terminology. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 4(Suppl 1):S37–S43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2013.05.013. PMID: 25755594. PMCID: PMC4244821.
52. George J, Panwar R, Saluja SS, Sahni P. Mishra PK, editor. 2016; Surgery for portal hypertension. Textbook of surgical gastroenterology. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers;1357–1366. DOI: 10.5005/jp/books/12748_125. PMID: 21424236.
crossref
53. Dutta HK, Baruah M. 2015; Management of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children: experience in a tertiary care center in Northeast India. J Med Soc. 29:101–105. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4958.163200.
crossref
54. Mishra PK, Patil NS, Saluja S, Narang P, Solanki N, Varshney V. 2016; High patency of proximal splenorenal shunt: a myth or reality ? - a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 27:82–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.12.071. PMID: 26804351.
crossref
55. Gupta S, Pottakkat B, Kalayarasan R, Senthil G, Nitesh PNB. 2022; Use of caudal pancreatectomy as a novel adjunct procedure to proximal splenorenal shunt in patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 26:178–183. DOI: 10.14701/ahbps.21-106. PMID: 35193996. PMCID: PMC9136421.
crossref
56. Orloff MJ, Orloff MS, Girard B, Orloff SL. 2002; Bleeding esophagogastric varices from extrahepatic portal hypertension: 40 years' experience with portal-systemic shunt. J Am Coll Surg. 194:717–728. discussion 728–730. DOI: 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01170-5. PMID: 12081062.
crossref
57. Sharma N, Bajpai M, Kumar A, Paul S, Jana M. 2014; Portal hypertension: a critical appraisal of shunt procedures with emphasis on distal splenorenal shunt in children. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 19:80–84. DOI: 10.4103/0971-9261.129599. PMID: 24741210. PMCID: PMC3983772.
crossref
58. Bismuth H, Franco D, Hepp J. 1974; Portal-systemic shunt in hepatic cirrhosis: does the type of shunt decisively influence the clinical result? Ann Surg. 179:209–218. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-197402000-00019. PMID: 4544047. PMCID: PMC1355781.
59. Wani AH, Shah OJ, Zargar SA. 2011; Management of variceal hemorrhage in children with extrahepatic portal venous obstruction-shunt surgery versus endoscopic sclerotherapy. Indian J Surg. 73:409–413. DOI: 10.1007/s12262-011-0345-z. PMID: 23204696. PMCID: PMC3236262.
crossref
60. Superina R, Shneider B, Emre S, Sarin S, de Ville de Goyet J. 2006; Surgical guidelines for the management of extra-hepatic portal vein obstruction. Pediatr Transplant. 10:908–913. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2006.00598.x. PMID: 17096756.
crossref
61. Warren WD, Henderson JM, Millikan WJ, Galambos JT, Bryan FC. 1988; Management of variceal bleeding in patients with noncirrhotic portal vein thrombosis. Ann Surg. 207:623–634. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198805000-00017. PMID: 3259859. PMCID: PMC1493505.
crossref
62. Sharif K, McKiernan P, de Ville de Goyet J. Mesoportal bypass for extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children: close to a cure for most! J Pediatr Surg. 2010; 45:272–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.08.019. PMID: 20105620.
crossref

Fig. 1
Patient selection. EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; PHT, portal hypertension; US, ultrasonography; CT, computed tomography; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; PSRS, proximal splenorenal shunt.
ahbps-27-4-350-f1.tif
Fig. 2
Treatment algorithm. EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; IGV, isolated gastric varix; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; CBD, common bile duct; ERC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; US, ultrasonography; CT, computed tomography; PSRS, proximal splenorenal shunt.
ahbps-27-4-350-f2.tif
Fig. 3
Imaging of EHPVO with PB. (A) CECT abdomen showing multiple hilar, peripancreatic, and perisplenic collaterals, and dilated splenic vein at splenic hilum. (B) MRCP showing irregular and dilated IHBR, angulation, and indentations of extrahepatic biliary tract due to compression by portal collaterals. EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; PB, portal biliopathy; CECT, contrast enhanced computed tomography; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; IHBR, intrahepatic biliary radicles; CBD, common bile duct.
ahbps-27-4-350-f3.tif
Fig. 4
Operative figures. (A) A completed splenorenal shunt–end of splenic vein is anastomosed with side of left renal vein. (B) Isolated fundal gastric varix is grasped with tissue forceps through wide anterior gastrostomy for direct suture ligation before splenectomy & devascularization. (C) A completed mesocaval shunt–SMV and IVC are anastomosed with interposition right IJV graft. (D) Hepaticodochotomy for interval hepaticojejunostomy after splenorenal shunt–common hepatic duct is opened and extended superiorly and leftwards to expose LHD and right RHD. Hepaticodochotomy margin is marsupialised with 5-0 polypropelene suture to prevent anastomotic bleeding, and is now ready for hepaticojejunostomy. SMV, superior mesenteric vein; IVC, inferior vena cava; IJV, internal jugular venous; LHD, left hepatic duct; RHD, right hepatic duct.
ahbps-27-4-350-f4.tif
Table 1
Preoperative characteristic of EHPVO patients
Preopeartive parameter Value
Age (yr) 20.30 ± 9.96
Sex
Male 93 (46.0)
Female 109 (54.0)
Comorbidity
Nil 183 (91)
Diabetes 5 (2.5)
Hypertension 1 (0.5)
Hypothyroidism 5 (2.5)
Others 7 (3.5)
Age of onset (yr) 12.88 ± 10.71
Index presentation
Bleeding 165 (81.7)
Portal biliopathy 18 (8.9)
Biliary lithiasis 5 (2.5)
Symptomatic splenomegaly 9 (4.5)
Symptomatic hypersplenism 5 (2.5)
Duration of illness (mon) 90.05 ± 75.13
Bleeding episodes 4.15 ± 6.79
No. of blood transfusion (units of PRBC) 6.35 ± 10.36
No. of endoscopic session 9.26 ± 8.88
Mode of control of bleeding
None 28 (13.9)
EST 11 (5.4)
EVL 93 (46.0)
Glue 4 (2.0)
Combinations 66 (32.7)
Compliance to endoscopy
Not applicable 16 (7.9)
Good 168 (83.2)
Poor 18 (8.9)
Variceal obliteration
Not applicable 22 (10.9)
Yes 106 (52.5)
No 74 (36.6)
Previous abdominal surgery 9 (4.5)
ERC & stenting 22 (10.9)
PTBD 1 (0.5)
Jaundice 64 (31.7)
Cholangitis 27 (13.4)
Gall stone 42 (20.8)
Bile duct stone 19 (9.4)
Splenic size
Not palpable 2 (1.0)
Grade 1 7 (3.5)
Grade 2 25 (12.4)
Grade 3 36 (17.8)
Grade 4 79 (39.1)
Grade 5 53 (26.2)
Splenic artery aneurysm 5 (2.5)
Ascites 17 (8.4)
Secondary biliary cirrhosis 5 (2.5)
Liver atrophy
Nil 197 (97.5)
Shrunken 1 (0.5)
Right lobe 2 (1.0)
Left lobe 2 (1.0)
Blood investigations
Hemoglobin (gm%) 8.90 ± 2.45
TLC (per cumm) 3,825.65 ± 3,211.89
Platelet (×103/cumm) 96.72 ± 68.46
Bilirubin (mg/dL) 1.61 ± 1.61
INR 1.35 ± 0.92
AST (U/L) 51.51 ± 50.13
ALT (U/L) 42.52 ± 49.29
Alkaline phosphatase (IU/L) 241.93 ± 418.90
Clinical presentations
Appearance of gastric varices 64 (31.7)
Bleeding 107 (53.0)
Portal biliopathy
No 104 (51.5)
Asymptomatic 41 (20.3)
Symptomatic 57 (28.2)
Hypersplenism
No 139 (68.8)
Asymptomatic 41 (20.3)
Symptomatic 22 (10.9)
Symptomatic splenomegaly 61 (30.2)
Symptomatic gall stone 30 (14.9)
Choledocholithiasis 17 (8.4)
Growth retardation 49 (24.3)
Endoscopic findings
Esophageal varices (initial grade)
0 9 (4.5)
1 5 (2.5)
2 67 (33.2)
3 121 (59.9)
Esophageal varices (final grade)
0 120 (59.4)
1 22 (10.9)
2 42 (20.8)
3 18 (8.9)
Gastroesophageal varices 50 (24.8)
Isolated gastric varices 22 (10.9)
Portal hypertensive gastropathy
No 161 (79.7)
Mild 34 (16.8)
Severe 7 (3.5)
Ectopic varices
No 195 (96.5)
Duodenal 2 (1.0)
Jejunal 0
Rectal 5 (2.5)
Colopathy 4 (2.0)
Imaging
USG 200 (99.0)
CECT 139 (68.8)
MRCP 54 (26.7)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; PRBC, packed red blood cell; EST, endoscopic sclerotherapy; EVL, esophageal varix; ERC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; PTBD, percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage; TLC, total leukocyte count; INR, international normalized ratio; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase; USG, ultrasonography; CECT, contrast enhanced computed tomography; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

Table 2
Operative parameters of EHPVO patients
Operative parameter Value
Main indications for surgery
Bleeding 50 (24.8)
Portal biliopathy 59 (29.2)
Appearance of gastric varices 20 (9.9)
Biliary lithiasis 13 (6.4)
Hypersplenism 18 (8.9)
Splenomegaly 3 (1.5)
Growth retardaion 15 (7.4)
Bleeding + portal biliopathy 5 (2.5)
Portal biliopathy + biliary lithiasis 16 (7.9)
Portal biliopathy + hypersplenism 3 (1.5)
Mode of surgery
Planned 184 (91.1)
Emergency 18 (8.9)
Left renal vein diameter (mm) 10.48 ± 3.96
Splenic vein diameter (mm) 9.23 ± 4.52
Splenoportal confluence
NA 8 (4.0)
Patent 164 (81.2)
Not patent 29 (14.4)
Shunt size (mm) 11.90 ± 4.29
Shuntable vein utilisation (n = 176)
Shunt done 166 (94.3)
Not done for inadvertent injury 7 (4.0)
Not done for hemodynamic instability 3 (1.7)
Surgical procedure
PSRS 162 (80.2)
Mesocaval shunt 4 (2.0)
Devascularization 20 (9.9)
Splenectomy 10 (5.0)
Cholecystectomy 3 (1.5)
HJ 2 (1.0)
Others 1 (0.5)
Additional procedure
Nil 163 (80.7)
Liver biopsy 16 (7.9)
Cholecystectomy 10 (5.0)
Others 13 (6.4)
Duration of surgery (min) 275.97 ± 79.81
Operative blood loss (mL) 365.69 ± 295.31
Blood transfusion (each unit)
PRBC 0.74 ± 1.3
FFP 0.12 ± 0.64
Platelet 0.00
Postoperative stay (day) 7.35 ± 3.98
Complications (Clavien–Dindo)
0 152 (75.2)
1 19 (9.4)
2 23 (11.4)
3 6 (3.0)
4 1 (0.5)
5 (postoperative death) 1 (0.5)

Values are presented as number only, number (%), or mean ± standard deviation.

EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; NA, not applicable; PSRS, proximal splenorenal shunt; HJ, hepaticojejunostomy; FFP, fresh frozen plasma.

Table 3
Postoperative complications, Clavien–Dindo classification
Complication grade (Clavien–Dindo) Number of complications Detail
I 24 Wound infection managed at bed side, n = 14; ascitic drainage, n = 3; sanguineous drainage not requiring blood transfusions, n = 1; gastroparesis, n = 3; transient jaundice, n = 2; fever not requiring higher antibiotics, n = 1
II 22 SMV thrombosis required anticoagulant, n = 1; postoperative delirium, n = 1; Fever requiring higher antibiotics, n = 2; postoperative consolidation, n = 3; thrombocytosis, n = 2; sanguineous drainage requiring blood transfusions, n = 2; central line sepsis, n = 1; POPF, n = 7 (IId); chylous leak, n = 2 (1 case IId category); gastric fistula, n = 1 (IId)
IIIa 3 Upper GI bleeding requiring endoscopy, n = 1; intercostal drainage for pneumothorax, n = 1; percutaneous drainage in intra-abdominal collections, n = 1
IIIb 4 Cholangitis requiring endobiliary clearance, n = 3; intra-abdominal bleeding requiring packing, n = 1
IVa 1 Intra-abdominal bleeding with requiring ICU care, inotrop support & blood transfusion, n = 1
IVb
V 1 Intra-abdominal bleeding, multiorgan failure, death, n = 1

SMV, superior mesenteric vein; POPF, post-operative pancreatic fistula; GI, gastrointestinal; ICU, intensive care unit.

Table 4
Follow-up parameters
Follow-up parameter Value
Duration of follow-up (mon) 56 (15–156)
Rebleeding 6 (3.0)
Follow up endoscopy (n = 54)
Normal 42 (77.8)
Esophageal varices 7 (13.0)
GOV 2 (3.7)
IGV 1 (1.9)
PHG 1 (1.9)
Ulcer 1 (1.9)
Shunt patency (n = 166) 155 (93.4)
Subsequent surgery
Not required 185 (91.6)
Devascularization 1 (0.5)
Mesocaval shunt 1 (0.5)
Open cholecystectomy 2 (1)
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy 3 (1.5)
Hepaticojejunostomy 6 (3.0)
Others 1 (0.5)
Bleeding during subsequent surgery (mL) (n = 14) 477.27 ± 278.71
Blood transfusion in subsequent surgery (units of PRBC) (n = 10) 1.50 ± 1.43
Outcome (n = 194)
Asymptomatic 166 (85.6)
Non-bleeder varices requiring endotherapy 8 (4.1)
Rebleeding requiring endotherapy 4 (2.1)
Rebleeding requiring surgery 1 (0.5)
Portal bilioparty requiring ERC 10 (5.2)
Portal biliopathy requiring HJ 5 (2.6)
Overall mortality
Operative death, 90-day mortality = 1 (0.5)a) 8 (4.0)

Values are presented as mean (range) or number (%).

GOV, gastro-oesophageal varices; IGV, isolated gastric varix; PHG, portal hypertensive gastropathy; PRBC, packed red blood cell; ERC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; HJ, hepaticojejunostomy.

a)Non-operative death = 7, cholangitis = 2, cirrhosis = 1, recurrent bleeding = 2, acute myocardial infarction = 1, meningitis = 1.

Table 5
Univariate and multivariate analysis to see differences in favourable and unfavourable outcome groups
Parameter Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Favourable long-term outcome (n = 166) Unfavourable long-term outcome (n = 28) p-value Exp (B) (OR) p-value (95% CI)
Age (yr) 19.32 ± 9.86 22.93 ± 9.01 0.71
Sex > 0.999
Male (n = 88) 75 (85.2) 13 (14.8)
Female (n = 106) 91 (85.8) 15 (14.2)
Age of onset (yr) 12.33 ± 10.64 14.45 ± 10.46 0.33
Index presentation 0.57
Bleeding (n = 160) 136 (85.0) 24 (15.0)
Portal biliopathy (n = 15) 12 (80.0) 3 (20.0)
Biliary lithiasis (n = 5) 4 (80.0) 1 (20.0)
Symptomatic splenomegaly (n = 9) 9 (100) 0
Symptomatic hypersplenism (n = 5) 5 (100) 0
Duration of illness (mon) 84.94 ± 67.55 102.25 ± 89.86 0.235
Bleeding episodes 3.78 ± 6.16 5.32 ± 8.18 0.244
No. of blood transfusions 5.86 ± 9.54 8.29 ± 12.43 0.237
No. of endoscopy 9.32 ± 8.74 9.93 ± 10.38 0.74
Conntrol of bleeding 0.370
EST (n = 10) 7 (70.0) 3 (30.0)
EVL (n = 89) 76 (85.4) 13 (14.6)
Glue (n = 4) 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0)
Combinations (n = 66) 59 (89.4) 7 (10.6)
Compliance to endotreatment 0.022* 0.30 0.298 (0.03–2.86)
Good 141 (87.6) 20 (12.4)
Poor 11 (64.7) 6 (35.3)
Variceal obliteration 0.827
Yes 90 (86.5) 14 (13.5)
No 61 (84.7) 11 (15.3)
Jaundice 0.121
Yes 46 (79.3) 12 (20.7)
No 120 (88.2) 16 (11.8)
Cholangitis 0.014* 0.27 0.204 (0.04–2.03)
Yes 17 (68.0) 8 (32.0)
No 149 (88.2) 20 (11.8)
Gall stone 0.043* 0.42 0.260 (0.09–1.91)
Yes 30 (75.0) 10 (25.0)
No 136 (88.3) 18 (11.7)
Bile duct stone 0.003* 0.93 0.947 (0.10–8.23)
Yes 9 (56.3) 7 (43.8)
No 157 (88.2) 21 (11.8)
Secondary biliary cirrhosis 0.375
Yes 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3)
No 164 (85.9) 27 (14.1)
Ascites 0.476
Yes 15 (93.8) 1 (6.2)
No 151 (84.8) 27 (15.2)
Splenic artery aneurysm 0.010* 0.01 0.007* (0.00–0.31)
Yes 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0)
No 165 (86.8) 25 (13.2)
Liver atrophy
Yes 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0) 0.495
No 163 (85.8) 27 (14.2)
Appearance of gastric varices
Yes 51 (83.6) 10 (16.4) 0.661
No 115 (86.5) 18 (13.5)
Bleeder
Yes 88 (84.6) 16 (15.4) 0.838
No 78 (86.7) 12 (13.3)
Hypersplenism
None 113 (84.3) 21 (15.7) 0.374
Asymptomatic 32 (84.2) 6 (15.8)
Symptomatic 21 (95.5) 1 (4.5)
Portal biliopathy 0.004* 0.86 0.885 (0.12–6.16)
Yes 37 (72.5) 14 (27.5)
No 129 (90.2) 14 (9.8)
Mode of surgery > 0.999
Elective 150 (85.2) 26 (14.8)
Emergency 16 (88.9) 2 (11.1)
Esophageal varices at the time of surgery 0.456
Grade 0 99 (85.3) 17 (14.7)
Grade 1 19 (95.0) 1 (5.0)
Grade 2 32 (80.0) 8 (20.0)
Grade 3 16 (88.9) 2 (11.1)
Gastroesophageal varices 0.481
Present 124 (95.4) 6 (4.6)
Absent 42 (89.4) 5 (10.6)
Isolated gastric varices 0.023* 0.07 0.004* (0.01–0.43)
Present 151 (87.8) 21 (12.2)
Absent 15 (68.2) 7 (31.8)
Portal hypertensive gastropathy 0.403
No 133 (86.4) 21 (13.6)
Mild 29 (85.3) 5 (14.7)
Severe 4 (66.7) 2 (33.3)
Ectopic varices 0.330
Present 161 (86.1) 26 (13.9)
Absent 5 (71.4) 2 (28.6)
Colopathy 0.467
Present 163 (85.8) 27 (14.2)
Absent 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0)
ERC & stenting 0.002* 0.06 0.015* (0.01–0.59)
Yes 155 (88.6) 20 (11.4)
No 11 (57.9) 8 (42.1)
Hemoglobin (gm%) 8.86 ± 2.54 9.07 ± 1.93 0.678
TLC (×103/cumm) 3.74 ± 3.17 4.56 ± 3.71 0.221
Bilirubin (mg/dL) 1.44 ± 1.19 2.39 ± 2.85 0.003* 0.99 0.976 (0.66–1.49)
INR 1.35 ± 0.98 1.35 ± 0.61 0.990
AST (U/L) 49.50 ± 50.10 64.04 ± 55.09 0.163
ALT (U/L) 41.64 ± 52.37 47.39 ± 33.75 0.541
Alkaline phosphatase (IU/L) 207.84 ± 222.04 390.21 ± 883.81 0.023* 1.00 0.279 (1.00–1.00)
Type of surgery 0.274
Shunt procedure 140 (84.3) 26 (15.7)
Non-shunt procedure 21 (75.0) 7 (25.0)
Splenic vein diameter (mm) 9.11 ± 4.42 10.52 ± 4.32 0.135
Shunt size (mm) 11.83 ± 4.3 12.48 ± 4.3 0.520
Duration of surgery (min) 270.61 ± 75.6 295.21 ± 93.53 0.126
Operative blood loss (mL) 332.35 ± 251.08 485.71 ± 427.28 0.009* 1.00 0.435 (1.00–1.00)
PRBC (unit) 0.72 ± 1.29 0.75 ± 1.38 0.901
Postoperative stay (day) 7.16 ± 3.42 7.75 ± 5.75 0.449
Shunt patency < 0.001* 0.03 < 0.001* (0.00–0.19)
Present 135 (90.0) 15 (10.0)
Absent 3 (33.3) 6 (66.7)

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation.

Binary logistic regression in Wald methodology was used to know the predictive factors responsible for unfavourable outcome.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; EST, endoscopic sclerotherapy; EVL, endoscopic variceal ligation; ERC, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; TLC, total leukocyte count; INR, International normalized ratio; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase; PRBC, packed red blood cell.

*p-value < 0.05.

Table 6
Outcomes of different shunt surgeries in EHPVO
Author Year Type of PSS No. of Patients Operative mortality (%) Shunt patency (%) Re-bleeding (%) Follow-up period Survival
Bismuth et al. [36] 1980 Central splenorenal, mesocaval, portocaval 52 0 94 2 50 mon 100%
Warren et al. [61] 1988 Distal splenorenal shunt 25 Nil 96 12 5 yr 96%
Mitra et al. [32] 1993 SSLR 81 Nil 84 11 54 mon 100%
Prasad et al. [30] 1994 PSRS 160 1.9 NA 11 12–156 mon 95% at 15 yr
Orloff et al. [31] 1994 PSRS, SSLR, mesocaval 162 Nil 98 2 5–35 yr 96% at 10 yr
Rao et al. [33] 2004 SSLR, PSRS 20 NA 95 Nil 3–5 yr 95%
Superina et al. [60] 2006 Rex shunt 34 NA 95 NA 1–7 yr 100%
Sharif et al. [62] 2010 Rex shunt 24 Nil 96 2 5.3–8.8 yr NA
Das et al. (current study) 2023 PSRS, mesocaval 166 0.6 93.4 0.6 1–13 yr 96%

EHPVO, extra hepatic portal venous obstruction; PSS, portosystemic shunts; SSLR, side-side lienorenal shunt; PSRS, proximal splenorenal shunt; NA, not applicable.

TOOLS
Similar articles