A comparison study of local injection and radiofrequency ablation therapy for traumatic portal vein injure guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography

Autores: Luo Yukun, Liu Qiang, Jiao Ziyu, Wu Rong, Tang Jie, Lv Faqin

Resumen

Background: To compare local injection of hemostatic agents and radiofrequency (RF)-assisted hemostasis in the management of bleeding from the portal vein with varying diameters and blood flow velocities. Material and methods: Sixteen Bama pigs were used. Laparotomy was performed to expose the liver and inner diameters and blood flow velocities of the pre-injured portal vein in the hepatic segments and subsegments were measured. Vascular injuries in the portal vein were produced (4 in each pig). The pigs were randomly divided into two groups and local injection of hemostatic agents was performed in one group and RF-assisted hemostasis in the other, both techniques monitored by contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). Time to hemostasis was measured, and the extent of liver injury was determined 2 h after treatment. Results: In the local injection group, the rates of successful hemostasis were 100, 88.9, and 50% with portal veins with inner diameters of < 1 mm, 1-2 mm, and 2-3 mm, respectively, and the maximum time to achieve hemostasis was 24.0 ± 7.2 s. Hemostasis was not successful when the diameter was > 3 mm. In the RF-assisted group, hemostasis was successfully at all sites regardless of vessel diameter; however, the maximum time to achieve hemostasis was 156.8 ± 31.2 s. Injury to surrounding tissue was significantly greater in the RF-assisted group. Conclusion: Both methods can achieve hemostasis with small diameter portal vein injuries; however, RF-assisted hemostasis is necessary for larger vessels, though it is associated with greater damage to surrounding tissue.

Palabras clave: Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography radiofrequency injury liver portal vein.

2012-02-10   |   443 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 11 Núm.2. Marzo-Abril 2012 Pags. 249-256 Ann Hepatol 2012; 11(2)