 |
|
Partial Portacaval Shunt for Variceal Hemorrhage—Invited Commentary
Hector Orozco, MD;
Miguel Angel Mercado, MD
Mexico City, Mexico
Arch Surg. 1998;133:594.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The article by Collins and coworkers is very interesting and several aspects of it deserve special mention. His group is interested in the management of portal hypertension and they take note of the importance of offering surgical treatment only in an elective fashion and to those patients with good liver function—a lesson we have learned with time.
There is no doubt as to the theory on which they base their surgical procedure; however, our attention is drawn to the fact that they indiscriminately use either 8- or 10-mm grafts. Our own group has published a prospective study comparing distal splenorenal shunts with mesocaval interposition of a 10-mm graft.1 Results of our study were not as encouraging as those obtained by Collins regarding graft permeability and postoperative encephalopathy (19% and 38%, respectively). One might argue that our patients received a slightly different operation than . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLE
Partial Portacaval Shunt for Variceal Hemorrhage: Longitudinal Analysis of Effectiveness
John Craig Collins, M. Jennifer Ong, Eric B. Rypins, and I. James Sarfeh
Arch Surg. 1998;133(6):590-593.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
