4.5 Article

Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix of the afferent loop after pancreatoduodenectomy

期刊

HPB
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 2193-2201

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.08.011

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). The study found that the incidence of jejunal varix was significant and portal vein (PV) stenosis was a strong risk factor for the development of jejunal varix. Early placement of a PV stent and maintaining stent patency could reduce the risk of variceal bleeding in patients with PV stenosis.
Background: Jejunal varix is a concerning late complication after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) due to the risk of recurrent and intractable bleeding. Our aim was to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of jejunal varix after PD. Methods: A total of 709 patients who underwent PD between 2007 and 2017 were included. Preoperative and postoperative CT images were reviewed to evaluate the development of portal vein (PV) stenosis (>= 50%) and jejunal varices. Results: Jejunal varix developed in 83 (11.7%) patients at a median of 12 months after PD. Eighteen (21.7%) patients experienced variceal bleeding. PV stenosis (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 33.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.6-66.7) and PV/superior mesenteric vein resection (P = 0.028; OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1- 4.7) were independent risk factors for jejunal varix. Of the nine patients who underwent stent placement for PV stenosis before the formation of jejunal varices, none experienced variceal bleeding. By contrast, 18 (27.3%) of the 135 patients without PV stent placement experienced at least one episode of variceal bleeding. Conclusions: The incidence of jejunal varix was substantial after PD. PV stenosis was a strong risk factor for jejunal varix. Early PV stent placement and maintaining stent patency could reduce the risk of variceal bleeding in patients with PV stenosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据