Portal vein arterialization as a salvage procedure in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Portal vein arterialization (PVA) is a possible option when hepatic artery reconstruction is impossible during liver resection. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the clinical application of PVA in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases until December 2019. Experimental (animal) studies, review articles and letters were excluded. Results: Twenty studies involving 57 patients were included. Cholangiocarcinoma was the most common indication for surgery (40 patients [74%]). An end-to-side anastomosis between a celiac trunk branch and the portal vein was the main PVA technique (35 patients [59%]). Portal hypertension was the most common longterm complication (12 patients [21%] after a mean of 4.1 mo). The median followup period was 12 (range 1-87) months. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 64%, 27% and 20%, respectively. Conclusion: Portal vein arterialization can be considered as a rescue option to improve the outcome in patients with acute liver de-arterialization when arterial reconstruction is not possible. To prevent portal hypertension and liver injuries due to thrombosis or overarterialization, vessel calibre adjustment and timely closure of the anastomosis should be considered. Further prospective experimental and clinical studies are needed to investigate the potential of this procedure in patients whose liver is suddenly de-arterialized during HPB procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".