Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the portocaval shunt (PCS) corrects these unwanted changes in transhepatic flow after extended hepatectomy (EH). Forty female Landrace pigs were divided into two main groups: (A) EH (75%) and (B) no EH. Group A was divided into 3 subgroups: (A1) EH without PCS; (A2) EH with side-to-side PCS; and (A3) EH with end-to-side PCS. Group B was divided into 2 subgroups: (B1) side-to-side PCS and (B2) end-to-side PCS. HAF, PVF, and PVP were measured in each animal before and after the surgical procedure. EH increased the PVF/100 g (173%, p < 0.001) and PVP (68%, p < 0.001) but reduced the HAF/100 g (22%, p = 0.819). Following EH, side-to-side PCS reduced the increased PVF (78%, p < 0.001) and PVP (38%, p = 0.001). Without EH, side-to-side PCS reduced the PVF/100 g (68%, p < 0.001) and PVP (12%, p = 0.237). PVP was reduced by end-to-side PCS following EH by 48% (p < 0.001) and without EH by 21% (p = 0.075). PCS can decrease and correct the elevated PVP and PVF/100 g after EH to close to the normal values prior to resection. The decreased HAF/100 g in the remnant liver following EH is increased and corrected through PCS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Liver resection is the most common and most efficient treatment for primary and secondary hepatic tumors, one that can provide a chance of long-term survival1,2,3. Improvements in patient selection criteria, surgical methods, and postoperative care have increased the indications for therapeutic extended hepatectomy (EH)4,5. The most important complication of EH is posthepatectomy liver failure or small for size and flow (SFSF) syndrome, which is associated with significantly high rates of morbidity and mortality6,7. The current therapeutic methods are not effective because most often, early tissue damage following SFSF is irreversible, and the liver parenchyma loses its capability to regenerate. Thus, the best approach is to predict the chance of SFSF and to perform the appropriate preventive procedure.
Current viewpoints strongly indicate that the incidence of SFSF after EH is directly dependent on transhepatic flow and remnant liver volume8,9,10,11. Portal vein flow (PVF), hepatic artery flow (HAF), and portal vein pressure (PVP) have been described as the main critical parameters for the development of SFSF12,13. Following EH, the ratio of HAF to the remnant liver weight (HAF/100 g) decreases, while PVF/100 g and PVP increase, resulting in various pathologic consequences that lead to SFSF10,14,15,16. Troisi et al. recommended a flow of 250 ml/min/100 g as the upper limit for PVF to prevent SFSF syndrome9,17. Thus, vascular modulation, which is able to decrease PVF/100 g and PVP, as well as increase HAF/100 g following EH, may prevent the occurrence of SFSF18,19,20,21. The aim of this study was to determine whether a portocaval shunt (PCS) can correct the unwanted changes that occur in transhepatic flow following EH.
Results
Forty female Landrace pigs aged between 10 and 12 weeks and weighing between 29 and 34 kg (mean 31 ± 2.7 kg) were included in this study. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the age or weight of the animals.
General monitoring
Hemodynamic variables remained stable in all animals for the full duration of the experiment. The MAP, CVP, and HR showed maximum changes of 5 mmHg, 1 mmHg, and 14 beats/min before and after each procedure, respectively, which were not statistically significant. The mean blood loss volume was 75 ± 20 ml during the procedures.
Portal vein flow (PVF)
After EH, the PVF/100 g of remnant liver increased from 102.11 ± 9.09 to 279 ± 36.44 ml/min/100 g (173%, p < 0.001; Number 1, Fig. 1). This increased flow following EH was reduced to 60 ± 12.40 ml/min/100 g remnant liver (78%, p < 0.001) through side-to-side PCS (Number 2, Fig. 1). Without EH, side-to-side PCS reduced the PVF from 102.11 ± 9.09 to 32.04 ± 5.46 ml/min/100 g (68%, p < 0.001; Number 3, Fig. 1), which is less than the effect of PCS with EH (p = 0.142; Number 3 < Number 2). The side-to-side PCS corrected the post EH PVF changes so that close to a normal PVF value was reached (Number 4, Fig. 1). The end-to-side PCS reduced the PVF to zero both in the with and without EH groups, since there was no flow in the portal vein following the placement of this shunt (Fig. 1). Changes in PVF following each step are summarized in Table 1.
Hepatic artery flow (HAF)
EH reduced the HAF/100 g from 22.85 ± 2.62 to 17.77 ± 2.8 ml/min/100 g (22%, p = 0.819; Number 1, Fig. 2). The side-to-side PCS following EH minimally increased the reduced HAF to 19.25 ± 2.9 ml/min/100 g (8%, p = 0.555; Number 2, Fig. 2). Without EH, the side-to-side PCS increased the HAF/100 g from 22.85 ± 2.62 to 27.57 ± 2.9 ml/min/100 g (20%, p = 0.272; Number 3, Fig. 2), which is more than the effect of PCS on HAF following EH (Number 3 > Number 2). The end-to-side PCS increased the HAF/100 g following EH from 17.77 ± 2.8 to 24.07 ± 2.08 ml/min/100 g (35%, p = 0.512) and without EH from 22.85 ± 2.62 to 32.17 ± 2.7 ml/min/100 g (42%, p = 0.041). The HAF/100 g following EH with an end-to-side PCS was even higher than the normal HAF/100 g (Number 4, Fig. 2). The changes in HAF following each step are summarized in Table 1.
Portal vein pressure (PVP)
EH increased the PVP from 9.5 ± 0.67 to 16 ± 1.29 mmHg (68%, p < 0.001; Number 1, Fig. 3). The side-to-side PCS following EH reduced the PVP from 16 ± 1.29 to 9.9 ± 0.66 mmHg (38%, p = 0.001; Number 2, Fig. 3). The PVP following EH with side-to-side PCS was close to the normal value. Without EH, the PVP decreased from 9.5 ± 0.67 to 8.3 ± 0.71 mmHg (12%, p = 0.237) as a result of side-to-side PCS (Number 3, Fig. 3). The end-to-side PCS reduced PVP following EH from 16 ± 1.29 to 8.3 ± 1.04 mmHg (48%, p < 0.001) and without EH from 9.5 ± 0.67 to 7.5 ± 0.81 mmHg (21%, p = 0.075). PVP did not significantly change as a result of PCS without EH. The side-to-side PCS after EH reduced PVP up to 80% the values after EH, whereas the end-to-side method reduced the pressure 10 percent more than the side-to-side method (48% vs. 38%; Number 4 vs. Number 2, Fig. 3). The changes in PVP following each step are summarized in Table 1.
Discussion
Despite the new developments in the field of liver surgery in recent decades, many patients are unable to undergo therapeutic liver resection due to the risk of SFSF syndrome22. Posthepatectomy liver failure remains one of the most serious complications of major liver resection and occurs in up to 10% of cases22,23. Several studies have reported posthepatectomy liver failure as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality7. Considering the important role of transhepatic flow in this regard24 as well as its unwanted changes following EH25, it can be hypothesized that by a correction of unwanted flow changes following EH, SFSF syndrome may be prevented. It has been shown that reducing the PVF by clamping the splenic artery and performing splenectomy26 in small for size grafts following partial liver transplantation can prevent the consequences of SFSF19,27,28,29. PCS, which also reduces PVF, could show similar results in partial liver transplantation30,31. The effect of PCS on portal vein decompression has been deemed an important factor in preventing progressive necrosis and ultimately fatal liver failure following partial liver transplantation32. While some experimental studies have investigated the role of PCS in rat models following EH33,34,35, the feasibility and the effect of PCS following EH in correction of transhepatic flow, including its effect on hepatic artery flow, have never been systematically studied in human or large animal models. Due to the anatomical and physiological similarities between pigs and humans36,37, pigs are optimal models for evaluating the long-term effect of PCS following EH. However, evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of PCS following EH in a short-term follow-up is one of the ethical and scientific prerequisites.
To systematically evaluate the immediate effect of PCS, we compared the transhepatic flow without PCS and with side-to-side and end-to-side PCS in livers without EH as well as following EH. Our study shows that following EH, the PVF and PVP increase, whereas HAF decreases significantly per 100 g of remnant liver. Moreover, we showed that the PCS, either side-to-side or end-to-side, can correct these variations by reducing the PVF and PVP and increasing the HAF. Following EH with side-to-side PCS, the PVF and PVP were even close to the normal values observed in an intact liver (without resection). This correction was also seen in HAF following EH through end-to-side PCS. As mentioned in our previous study, it is important to compare the results proportional to the remnant liver volume25. In the clinical setting and following EH, the remnant liver is exposed to increased PVF and PVP24. This leads to centrilobular arterial hypoperfusion and sinusoidal damage and finally to the occurrence of SFSF syndrome with a high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality32,38,39. Following EH, the liver attempts to regenerate itself to be able to provide the needed function for the whole body mass40. It has been shown that following EH, the HAF remains constant41. It is also known that the liver will automatically compensate for a reduction in PVF by increasing the HAF to hold the transhepatic flow unchanged. This phenomenon is called the hepatic artery buffer response42. Therefore, performing a PCS not only correct the unwanted changes in PVF and PVP but can also improve the HAF. Our results could show and confirm this pattern following EH in a porcine model with a short-term evaluation.
PCS can be performed either side-to-side or end-to-side. Based on our results, the side-to-side PCS corrects the PVF and PVP changes following EH up to the normal values in an intact liver (without resection). The end-to-side PCS could show better results in regard to the HAF. This is because the liver loses the whole PVF following an end-to-side PCS and attempts to compensate for this variation by increasing the HAF. In the clinical setting, side-to-side PCS is more practical than end-to-side PCS. Redirecting the whole PVF through an end-to-side PCS can result in high-stage hepatic encephalopathy as well as right heart failure43,44. However, end-to-side PCS can be an option in few cases with chronic portal vein obstruction. Although short-term follow-up results are necessary and form a basis for further long-term studies, the absence of a long-term follow-up is admittedly a limitation of this study.
Conclusion
Hepatic inflow modulation by PCS following EH is feasible. PCS following EH immediately reduces and corrects the increased PVF and PVP and increases the decreased HAF. Based on these findings and since the changes in HAF, PVF, and PVP are considered triggers of SFSF syndrome, further long-term experimental and clinical studies must be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of PCS in preventing SFSF syndrome following EH.
Methods
Study design
The study has been reported in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments)45. This experimental study was conducted on forty female Landrace pigs. The animals were divided into two main groups: (A) EH (75%) and (B) no EH. Group A was further divided into 3 subgroups: (A1) EH without PCS; (A2) EH with side-to-side PCS; and (A3) EH with end-to-side PCS. Group B was divided into 2 subgroups: (B1) side-to-side PCS without EH and (B2) end-to-side PCS without EH (Fig. 4). Each group was made up of 8 animals. HAF, PVF, and PVP were measured in each animal before and after the surgical procedure. The baseline data of the animals before the surgery were considered representative of the group without EH and without PCS.
Anesthesia, hemodynamics, hepatic inflow and pressure monitoring
After a 12-h fasting time with free access to water, the pigs were anesthetized following our standardized narcotic protocol. Two catheters were placed in the carotid artery and internal jugular vein to monitor MAP and CVP, respectively. The heart rate, body temperature, and blood oxygen saturation were monitored during the entire procedure37. A Lohmeier M111 device (Lohmeier Medical GmbH, Munich, Germany) was used to monitor PVP, HAF, and PVF, as described in our previous study25. After performing any intervention, we monitored the PVF, HAF, and PVP in each study group until the values reached a stable level. The HAF and PVF are reported in ml per 100 g remnant liver.
Surgical procedure
The resection procedure was conducted in accordance with our standardized stapler hepatectomy method46. After EH, complete hemostasis was achieved by electrocoagulation and hand suturing. To perform the PCS, the portal vein and vena cava were prepared and released from the surrounding tissues in the potential anastomosis place. Both veins were cross-clamped after heparinization with 30 IU/kg. For side-to-side PCS placement, a portal vein-caliber size anastomosis was performed between the right lateral side of the portal vein and medial side of the vena cava using Prolene 5–0 (PROLENE® Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany) in a continuous technique (Fig. 5). To place the end-to-side PCS, a portal vein-caliber size venotomy was performed on the vena cava after the portal vein in the liver hilum was cross-clamped and dissected. Anastomosis was performed continuously with the end-to-side technique (Fig. 6). At the end of the experiment, the remnant liver was resected and weighed to determine the hepatic hemodynamic values related to the remnant liver weight (per 100 g).
Animal rights
The study protocol was approved by the German Committee for Animal Care, Karlsruhe, Germany (AZ: 35-9185.81/G-45/12). In accordance with the institutional guidelines established for the Animal Care Facility at the University of Heidelberg, all animals received human care during the experiment. Once the surgical procedures were completed and the hemodynamic measurements were obtained, the animals were euthanized by an intravenous injection of potassium chloride (2 mmol/kg) under deep anesthesia.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22 (IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). All measured values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), and the changes in the values are graphically represented. The differences in mean hemodynamic measurements between study groups were tested using independent samples t tests. A p value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant in all tests.
Institutional protocol number
The study protocol was approved by the German Committee for Animal Care, Karlsruhe, Germany (AZ: 35–9185.81/G-45/12).
Abbreviations
- EH:
-
Extended hepatectomy
- HAF:
-
Hepatic artery flow
- PVF:
-
Portal vein flow
- PVP:
-
Portal vein pressure
- SFSF:
-
Small for size and flow
- PCS:
-
Portocaval shunt
References
El-Serag, H. B., Marrero, J. A., Rudolph, L. & Reddy, K. R. Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 134, 1752–1763. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.090 (2008).
Manfredi, S. et al. Epidemiology and management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 244, 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000217629.94941.cf (2006).
Poon, R. T. et al. Improving survival results after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective study of 377 patients over 10 years. Ann. Surg. 234, 63–70 (2001).
Abdalla, E. K., Barnett, C. C., Doherty, D., Curley, S. A. & Vauthey, J. N. Extended hepatectomy in patients with hepatobiliary malignancies with and without preoperative portal vein embolization. Arch. Surg. 137, 675–680 (2002) (Discussion 680–671).
Belghiti, J. et al. Seven hundred forty-seven hepatectomies in the 1990s: An update to evaluate the actual risk of liver resection. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 191, 38–46 (2000).
Shoup, M. et al. Volumetric analysis predicts hepatic dysfunction in patients undergoing major liver resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 7, 325–330 (2003).
Ren, Z., Xu, Y. & Zhu, S. Indocyanine green retention test avoiding liver failure after hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. Hepatogastroenterology 59, 782–784. https://doi.org/10.5754/hge11453 (2012).
Asencio, J. M., Vaquero, J., Olmedilla, L. & Garcia Sabrido, J. L. “Small-for-flow” syndrome: shifting the “size” paradigm. Med. Hypotheses 80, 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.01.028 (2013).
Golriz, M. et al. Small for size and flow (SFSF) syndrome: An alternative description for post hepatectomy liver failure. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 40, 267–275 (2015).
Guglielmi, A., Ruzzenente, A., Conci, S., Valdegamberi, A. & Iacono, C. How much remnant is enough in liver resection?. Dig. Surg. 29, 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1159/000335713 (2012).
Vasavada, B. B., Chen, C. L. & Zakaria, M. Portal flow is the main predictor of early graft dysfunction regardless of the GRWR status in living donor liver transplantation: A retrospective analysis of 134 patients. Int. J. Surg. 12, 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.12.006 (2014).
Fondevila, C. et al. Portal hyperperfusion: Mechanism of injury and stimulus for regeneration in porcine small-for-size transplantation. Liver Transplant. 16, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21989 (2010).
Golriz, M. et al. Hepatic hemodynamic changes after stepwise liver resection. J Gastrointest. Surg. 20, 587–594 (2015).
Kelly, D. M. et al. Porcine partial liver transplantation: A novel model of the “small-for-size” liver graft. Liver transplant. 10, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20073 (2004).
Man, K. et al. Graft injury in relation to graft size in right lobe live donor liver transplantation: A study of hepatic sinusoidal injury in correlation with portal hemodynamics and intragraft gene expression. Ann. Surg. 237, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000048976.11824.67 (2003).
Nagino, M. et al. Liver regeneration after major hepatectomy for biliary cancer. Br. J. Surg. 88, 1084–1091. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01832.x (2001).
Troisi, R. & de Hemptinne, B. Clinical relevance of adapting portal vein flow in living donor liver transplantation in adult patients. Liver Transplant. 9, S36-41. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2003.50200 (2003).
Graham, J. A., Samstein, B., Emond, J. C. & Kato, T. Functional distal splenorenal shunt and splenic artery ligation as portal flow modulation in left lobe living donor transplantation. Liver Transplant. 20, 245–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23790 (2014).
Lo, C. M., Liu, C. L. & Fan, S. T. Portal hyperperfusion injury as the cause of primary nonfunction in a small-for-size liver graft-successful treatment with splenic artery ligation. Liver Transplant. 9, 626–628. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2003.50081S1527646503000674[pii] (2003).
Troisi, R. et al. Effects of hemi-portocaval shunts for inflow modulation on the outcome of small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 5, 1397–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.00850.x (2005).
Yoshizumi, T. et al. The beneficial role of simultaneous splenectomy in living donor liver transplantation in patients with small-for-size graft. Transpl. Int. 21, 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00678.x (2008).
Paugam-Burtz, C. et al. Prospective validation of the “fifty-fifty” criteria as an early and accurate predictor of death after liver resection in intensive care unit patients. Ann. Surg. 249, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819279cd (2009).
Jaeck, D., Bachellier, P., Oussoultzoglou, E., Weber, J. C. & Wolf, P. Surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: Post-operative outcome and long-term results in Europe: An overview. Liver Transplant. 10, S58-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20041 (2004).
Golriz, M. et al. Small for Size and Flow (SFSF) syndrome: An alternative description for posthepatectomy liver failure. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinre.2015.06.024 (2015).
Golriz, M. et al. Hepatic hemodynamic changes following stepwise liver resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-3021-y (2015).
Sato, Y. et al. Splenectomy for reduction of excessive portal hypertension after adult living-related donor liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology 49, 1652–1655 (2002).
Troisi, R. et al. Modulation of liver graft hemodynamics by partial ablation of the splenic circuit: A way to increase hepatic artery flow?. Transplant 33, 1445–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-1345(00)02547-1 (2001).
Singhal, A., Goyal, N. & Gupta, V. V. Delayed splenic artery occlusion for treatment of established small-for-size syndrome after partial liver transplantation. Liver Transplant. 15, 1381–1382. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21844 (2009).
Lo, C. M. Splenic artery occlusion for small-for-size syndrome: Better late than never but early is the best. Liver Transplant. 15, 124–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.21696 (2009).
Takada, Y. et al. End-to-side portocaval shunting for a small-for-size graft in living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transplant. 10, 807–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20164 (2004).
Yamada, T. et al. Selective hemi-portocaval shunt based on portal vein pressure for small-for-size graft in adult living donor liver transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 8, 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02144.x (2008).
Ladurner, R., Schenk, M., Margreiter, R., Offner, F. & Konigsrainer, A. Influence of portosystemic shunt on liver regeneration after hepatic resection in pigs. HPB Surg. 2009, 835965. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/835965 (2009).
Marubashi, S. et al. Effect of portal hemodynamics on liver regeneration studied in a novel portohepatic shunt rat model. Surgery 136, 1028–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2004.03.012 (2004).
Sato, Y., Koyama, S., Tsukada, K. & Hatakeyama, K. Acute portal hypertension reflecting shear stress as a trigger of liver regeneration following partial hepatectomy. Surg. Today 27, 518–526 (1997).
Niiya, T. et al. Immediate increase of portal pressure, reflecting sinusoidal shear stress, induced liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 6, 275–280 (1999).
Court, F. et al. Segmental nature of the porcine liver and its potential as a model for experimental partial hepatectomy. Br. J. Surg. 90, 440–444 (2003).
Golriz, M. et al. Pig kidney transplantation: An up-to-date guideline. Eur. Surg. Res. 49, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343132 (2012).
Man, K. et al. Liver transplantation in rats using small-for-size grafts: A study of hemodynamic and morphological changes. Arch. Surg. 136, 280–285 (2001).
Ueno, S., Kobayashi, Y., Kurita, K., Tanabe, G. & Aikou, T. Effect of prior portosystemic shunt on early hepatic hemodynamics and sinusoids following 84% hepatectomy in dogs. Res. Exp. Med. 195, 1–8 (1995).
Michalopoulos, G. K. Liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy: Critical analysis of mechanistic dilemmas. Am. J. Pathol. 176, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.090675 (2010).
Michalopoulos, G. K. & DeFrances, M. C. Liver regeneration. Science 276, 60–66 (1997).
Eipel, C., Abshagen, K. & Vollmar, B. Regulation of hepatic blood flow: The hepatic arterial buffer response revisited. World J. Gastroenterol. 16, 6046–6057 (2010).
Balanzo, J. et al. Incidence of encephalopathy following portocaval shunt. Rev. Espanola Enfermed. Aparat. Dig. 67, 501–505 (1985).
Leonard, H., O’Beirne, J., Yu, D. & Tsochatzis, E. Embolization of porto-systemic shunt as treatment for recurrent hepatic encephalopathy. Ann. Hepatol. 13, 555–557 (2014).
du Sert, N. P. et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 20. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 (2020).
Schemmer, P. et al. The use of endo-GIA vascular staplers in liver surgery and their potential benefit: A review. Dig. Surg. 24, 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1159/000103662 (2007).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as a part of project A02-SFB/TRR 125 Cognition-Guided Surgery. We would like to thank Arman Edalatpour for helping us during the experimental procedure.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.G., A.M.A., E.K., A.R. designed the study, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript. M.H., N.R., A.S., J.A., S.E.S., S.A., and G.E. contributed knowledge and revised the manuscript. M.H., A.R. and A.M. co-designed the study and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Golriz, M., Majlesara, A., Khajeh, E. et al. Portocaval shunt can optimize transhepatic flow following extended hepatectomy: a short-term study in a porcine model. Sci Rep 12, 1668 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05327-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05327-3
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.