Clinical efficacy of surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for cavernous transformation of portal vein

Table 1 A detailed comparison of surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with other surgically assisted portosystemic shunt

	Intraoperative risk	Portal thrombosis	Study purpose	Comparison
SATIPS	Medium	CTPV	To study the efficacy and feasibility of SATIPS in the treatment of CTPV
Surgically assisted portosystemic shunt (Grigory Rozenblit)	Medium	None	To report a new technology	It reported the technology, but did not study the clinical efficacy
Surgically assisted portosystemic shunt (Hamed Jalaeian)	Medium	None	To study the effect of surgically assisted TIPS in the treatment of portal hypertension without portal vein thrombosis	The patients had no portal vein thrombosis, and routine TIPS did not require surgical intervention. To date, the study has limited significance
TEPS	Hard	CTPV	To study the effect of TEPS on CTPV	The risk of TEPS puncture is high, the risk of intraoperative bleeding is high, and the long-term stability of postoperative stent remains to be observed

SATIPS: Surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; CTPV: Cavernous transformation of the portal vein; TIPS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; TEPS: Transjugular extrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

Table 2 Comparison of basic indicators between the surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt group and control group

Variable	SATIPS group	Control group	P value
Sex			0.104
Man	30	22
Woman	24	31
Age (years)	52.1 ± 14.8	50.4 ± 15.8	0.962
Etiology			0.782
Hepatitis B cirrhosis	25	26
Hepatitis C cirrhosis	5	6
Alcoholic cirrhosis	10	7
Autoimmune cirrhosis	5	3
Cholestatic cirrhosis	4	2
Infection of the umbilical cord at birth	5	8
Weight (kg)	64.9 ± 8.6	70.6 ± 8.9	0.927
Whether to cut the spleen			0.368
Yes	13	15
No	41	37
Height (cm)	166.7 ± 6.6	169.5 ± 6.9	0.974
Laboratory inspection
ALT (U/L)	21.1 ± 14.1	25.7 ± 12.5	0.972
AST (U/L)	27.8 ± 18.4	30.9 ± 14.6	0.776
PTA (%)	64.4 ± 15.5	71.2 ± 14.3	0.566
INR	1.4 ± 0.5	1.3 ± 0.2	0.122
Bilirubin (μmol/L)	31.3 ± 21.7	22.9 ± 14.6	0.118
Albumin (g/L)	33.2 ± 5.1	35.6 ± 5.2	0.465

SATIPS: Surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase; PTA: Prothrombin time activity; INR: International normalized ratio.

Table 3 Comparison of survival rates, hepatic encephalopathy incidence, gastrointestinal rebleeding incidence and liver failure incidence between the surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt group and control group

	SATIPS group (%)	Control group (%)	P value
Postoperative liver failure
3 months	3.7	9.4	0.26
6 months	3.7	18.9	0.016
Postoperative gastrointestinal rebleeding
3 months	5.6	37.7	< 0.001
6 months	9.3	47.2	< 0.001
Postoperative survival rate
3 months	94.4	92.5	0.72
6 months	94.4	73.6	0.0051
Postoperative hepatic encephalopathy
3 months	3.7	17.0	0.026
6 months	7.4	26.4	0.026

P value < 0.05 suggested that there was significant difference between the two groups. SATIPS: Surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt.

Table 4 Stent stenosis rates and stent count

Parameter	Percentage (%)
Postoperative stent restenosis
3 months	9.3
6 months	13.0
Number of stents
One	46.3
Two	53.7

Table 5 Hemodynamic changes pre- and post-surgically assisted transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

	Before operation	Post-operation	P value
Inferior vena cava pressure	6.6 ± 2.9	10.1 ± 2.7	< 0.001
Portal pressure	31.6 ± 5.1	18.4 ± 3.7	< 0.001
PPG	24.8 ± 4.9	8.4 ± 3.3	< 0.001

P value < 0.05 suggested that there was significant difference between the two groups. PPG: Portal pressure gradient.