Cited by 16Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesLiver Disease and Transplantation

A systematic review of the impact of portal vein pressure changes on clinical outcomes following hepatic resection

Open access
Gavriilidis, Paschalis, Hammond, John S., Hidalgo, Ernest·2020·HPB

Abstract

Background There are evolving data correlating elevated post-hepatic resection portal vein pressure (PVP) with risk of developing post-resection liver failure (PLF) and other complications. As a consequence, modulation of PVP presents a potential strategy to improve outcomes following liver resection (LR). The primary aim of this study was to review the existing evidence regarding the impact of post-resection PVP on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing a LR. Methods Systematic literature searches of electronic databases in accordance with PRISMA were conducted. Changes in PVP and clinical outcomes following liver resection were defined according to the existing literature. Results Ten studies, consisting of 712 patients with a median age 61 (52-68) years, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 77% (n = 550) underwent a major LR and 27% (n = 195) of patients had cirrhosis. Following LR, the median (range) PVP increased from 11.4 mmHg (median baseline, range 7.3-16.4) to 15.9 mmHg (7.9-19). The overall median incidence of PLF was 19%. Six of the ten studies found an elevated PVP after LR predicted PLF. One study found elevated PVP after LR predicted mortality after LR. Conclusion Elevated PVP following hepatic resection was associated with increased rates of PLF. It was not possible to define a specific threshold PVP for predicting PLF. Modulation of PVP therefore presents a potential strategy to mitigate the incidence of LR. Future studies should standa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.07.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review by Gavriilidis et al confirmed that portal hemodynamic control improves liver function and survival after resection.

    “These findings are further supported by a systematic review (Gavriilidis et al[24]), which confirmed that portal hemodynamic control improves liver function and survival after resection.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gavriilidis, P., Hammond, J. S., & Hidalgo, E.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • Freeman Hospital (GB)
  • Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
Corresponding author
Gavriilidis, Paschalis
Venue
HPB
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
1521-1529
ISSN
1365-182X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048728524
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • HPB (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
Keywords
portal pressure, hepatectomy, remnant liver, postoperative complications, mortality, liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension
MeSH terms
Hepatectomy, Humans, Middle Aged, Portal Vein, Portal Pressure, Liver Failure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review