Indian Journal of Radiology Indian Journal of Radiology  

   Login   | Users online: 587

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size     

 

INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM Table of Contents   
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 249-255
Interventional radiology in the management of portal hypertension


Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, 308433, Singapore

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

   Abstract 

From being a mere (though important) diagnostic tool, radiology has evolved to become an integral part of therapy in portal hypertension today. Various procedures are currently available, the choice depending on the etiology and location of disease, the pathoanatomy, and the symptomatology. The main aim of any procedure is to reduce the portal pressure by either direct or indirect methods. This can be achieved with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), recanalization of the hepatic vein outflow, recanalization of the portal vein and its tributaries, recanalization of dysfunctional portosystemic shunts, partial splenic embolization, and embolization of arterioportal shunts. When any of these procedures cannot be performed due to anatomical or physiological reasons, the symptoms can often be controlled effectively with embolization of varices or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of varices (BRTO). This article briefly describes the procedures, their results, and their current status in the treatment of portal hypertension.

Keywords: Interventional radiology; portal hypertension

How to cite this article:
Punamiya SJ. Interventional radiology in the management of portal hypertension. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2008;18:249-55

How to cite this URL:
Punamiya SJ. Interventional radiology in the management of portal hypertension. Indian J Radiol Imaging [serial online] 2008 [cited 2019 Jul 17];18:249-55. Available from: http://www.ijri.org/text.asp?2008/18/3/249/41840
The role of the radiologist in the management of portal hypertension (PHT) has undergone a significant metamorphosis over the last few decades. Initially, it was limited to determining the presence and cause of PHT, using angiographic techniques such as percutaneous splenoportography, transhepatic portography, and arterioportography. For many years these procedures were conducted frequently for planning surgical treatment; later, they were replaced by safer and equally reliable modalities such as USG, CT scan and CT angiography (CTA) and MRI and MRI angiography (MRA).

Progressively, the focus changed from diagnostic to therapeutic procedures. Interventions involving the portal venous system were introduced in the 1970s, beginning with transhepatic embolization for control of gastric and esophageal variceal bleeding. The subsequent decade saw an expansion in the variety of therapeutic interventions, with procedures such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, portal vein recanalization, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of varices, hepatic venous outflow angioplasty, and revision of surgical shunts being rapidly introduced one after the other. Since then radiological interventions have become established methods in the treatment of PHT.


   Interventions in PHT Top


The primary goal in treating portal hypertension is reduction in the portal venous pressure itself. This should mitigate the complications of portal hypertension such as bleeding from varices and congestive gastroenteropathy, accumulation of ascites and hydrothorax, or the hepatorenal syndrome, etc. When it is not possible to achieve this primary goal, various procedures can be offered to palliate or control the symptoms related to portal hypertension. The various portal vein interventions can be broadly categorized as:

1. Interventions that reduce portal blood pressure:

  1. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS)
  2. Recanalization of hepatic venous outflow
  3. Recanalization of the occluded portal vein and its tributaries
  4. Embolization of arterioportal fistula
  5. Partial splenic embolization
  6. Revision of occluded surgical or radiological portosystemic shunts


2. Interventions to palliate symptoms related to portal hypertension (without altering the portal blood pressure):

  1. Percutaneous transhepatic variceal embolization
  2. Balloon retrograde obliteration of gastric varices (BRTO)
  3. Percutaneous peritoneovenous shunt


Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS)

TIPS is a portosystemic shunt created within the liver parenchyma between the hepatic vein and the portal vein. The procedure involves many steps: (1) puncture of the jugular vein, (2) cannulation of the hepatic vein, (3) passage of a long needle from the hepatic vein, through the liver parenchyma and into the portal vein, (4) dilatation, with an angioplasty balloon, of the parenchymal tract created by the needle, and (5) stent deployment to ensure patency of the tract. Usually an 8-10 mm diameter stent is chosen to adequately decompress the hypertensive portal circulation to achieve a final portosystemic gradient of less than 12 mm Hg [Figure 1].

TIPS was conceived as early as 1969, when R φsch reported this method in a series of dog experiments using Teflon tubes as stents. [1] It has since then matured from an experimental procedure into an established technique and has replaced surgical shunts in most centers where it is available. It has proved to be effective in treating various complications of PHT [Table 1]. [2]

TIPS is contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure, severe pulmonary hypertension, severe tricuspid regurgitation, hepatic failure, preexisting encephalopathy, unrelieved biliary obstruction, multiple hepatic cysts, and uncontrolled systemic infection. Relative contraindications include the presence of large liver tumors, hepatic vein thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia (<20,000/cm 3 ) and severe coagulopathy (INR >5). [2]

TIPS is successful in more than 95% of patients and is generally safe, with a procedural mortality of <1%. The 1-month mortality, however, is variable and can be as high as 40%, in patients with limited hepatic reserve. This poor outcome can be predicted using various prognostic indicators such as serum bilirubin ( >3 mg/dl), Child-Pugh score ( >12), modified MELD score (>25), APACHE II score (>18), or Emory risk score (>3). [3]

TIPS gives excellent short-term results by controlling bleeding in >90% cases and controlling ascites and hydrothorax in >70% cases; these results are much better than those obtained by more traditional methods of therapy, i.e., endoscopic therapy (ET) and repeated paracentesis [Table 2] and [Table 3]. [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21]

The long-term results of TIPS are impaired by the high rate of shunt dysfunction from intimal hyperplasia and the resulting recurrence of symptoms [Figure 2]. The primary patency rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years is 25-66%, 5-42%, 21%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. If a regular Doppler or angiographic surveillance of TIPS is done, early shunt stenosis can be detected and patency enhanced by a secondary balloon dilation or restenting. The resulting primary assisted patency rates approximate 85%, 61%, 46%, 42%, and 36% at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, respectively, and the cumulative secondary patency rates increase to 85-96% and 64-90% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. [22] However, this calls for reliable follow-up, more interventions, and a cumulative increase in expenditure incurred. The introduction of stent-grafts has largely mitigated this problem, with 1-year primary patency rates of >80% [23],[24] [Figure 3]. In studies comparing bare stents and stent-grafts, the latter have been shown to provide much better patency rates. [25]

Like any other portosystemic shunt, TIPS can be responsible for encephalopathy in up to 50% of patients. Fortunately, most of these episodes are mild and only medical management is necessary. In 3-7% cases, this encephalopathy can be severe or recurrent, necessitating a shunt reduction. [26]


   Recanalization of Hepatic Venous Outflow Top


 Budd-Chiari syndrome More Details includes all obstructions to the hepatic vein outflow at the level of the hepatic vein and/or the inferior vena cava. This causes hepatic congestion which, when left untreated, progresses to hepatic necrosis and fibrosis. The aim of treatment is to restore physiological flow, i.e., to recanalize the hepatic vein and/or the inferior vena cava by balloon angioplasty and stenting thus relieving the hepatic congestion and preventing progression to irreversible liver damage. [27] This is feasible if the obstruction is over a short segment [Figure 4] and [Figure 5]. Long segment hepatic vein occlusion is difficult to reopen and even if restored the reocclusion rates are extremely high. This subgroup of patients would need a portosystemic shunt. Surgical portocaval shunts are difficult to create, due to the large caudate lobe not allowing easy access to the portal vein. Also, portocaval shunts may not be successful, as the shunt often opens into a hypertensive cava due to caval compression by an enlarged caudate lobe. TIPS has increasingly been performed in such patients as it is associated with much less morbidity and can provide very gratifying results [Figure 6] and [Figure 7]. In addition, TIPS opens high into the inferior vena cava and is not affected by any compression by the enlarged caudate lobe. In the few published case series, ascites control is close to 100%, and there is improvement in liver function, obviating the need for transplantation in most cases. [28],[29]


   Recanalization of the Portal Vein and Its Tributaries Top


Extrahepatic obstruction of the portal vein or its branches can induce a focal PHT; this accounts for 5-10% of all cases of PHT. The cause of obstruction can be benign or malignant, and patients usually present with variceal bleeding, ascites, or abdominal pain. Recanalization of the blocked vein by angioplasty and stenting will reduce these symptoms and can be done either via a transjugular or a percutaneous transhepatic route [Figure 8]. [30],[31]


   Embolization of Arterioportal Fistulae Top


Arterioportal fistulae (APF) are a rare cause of PHT. They may be congenital or secondary to trauma, surgery, percutaneous biopsy or other liver procedures, and liver tumors. Although silent most of the times, some patients with large APFs can present with features of PHT such as bleeding, ascites, and splenomegaly. The preferred treatment is transarterial embolization of the feeding artery, using coils, detachable balloons, or glue. The procedure is usually successful, provided the fistula is not too large and is accessible. [32]


   Partial Splenic Embolization (PSE) Top


PSE is performed to diminish inflow of blood into the portal vein, with secondary reduction of the portal venous pressure. The procedure involves superselective catheterization and embolization of the intrasplenic arterial branches, usually with polyvinyl alcohol particles. This achieves reduction of portal vein pressure, reduction in splenic size, and improvement in hypersplenism-induced thrombocytopenia. [33] The results of treatment are good and the rate of serious complications (e.g., splenic abscess or sepsis) with current techniques is low.


   Percutaneous Transhepatic Variceal Embolization (PTE) Top


PTE was the earliest intervention performed for portal hypertension and was first described by Lunderquist and Vang in 1974 to treat intractable variceal bleeding. In this technique, the portal vein is catheterized by a percutaneous transhepatic approach and the gastric vein feeding the varix is embolized with ethanol, steel coils, or cyanoacrylate glue [Figure 9]. When first described, PTE appeared to be a highly effective procedure, successfully controlling bleeding in 70-90% of patients. However, the underlying PHT was unaffected and, consequently, bleeding recurred in 38-70% of patients within 6 months and in 71-90% after 2 years. In addition, it carried a failure rate of 9%, particularly in patients with portal vein thrombosis or small livers with marked ascites. [34] PTE itself was responsible for inducing portal vein thrombosis in up to 36% of patients. [35] All these factors, and the emergence of endoscopic therapy (EST), led to a decline in the procedure; EST had better survival rates and lower rebleeding rates. The introduction of TIPS and BRTO further antiquated the procedure, and PTE is now very rarely performed.


   Balloon-occluded Retrograde Transvenous Obliteration of Varices (BRTO) Top


BRTO is a technique that is popular in Japan for control of gastric varices through a natural gastrorenal shunt. The technique involves advancing a balloon catheter from the femoral vein into the outlet of the gastrorenal shunt. Following balloon occlusion of the shunt, sclerosant (5% ethanolamine oleate) is injected retrogradely to fill the gastric varices. After adequate contact of the sclerosant with the variceal wall, the sclerosant is aspirated and the balloon catheter withdrawn. Considered by many to be as effective as TIPS in controlling gastric variceal bleeding, it has an added advantage in that it augments portal blood flow by occluding the natural shunt that takes blood away from the portal vein. This improves liver function in cirrhotic patients and also prevents encephalopathy, a problem commonly associated with TIPS. [36] However, occlusion of the gastrorenal shunt may aggravate existing esophageal varices or lead to the development of new ones, and this is one the most significant complications of BRTO. [37]


   Percutaneous Peritoneovenous Shunt Top


Surgical peritoneovenous shunts have been replaced by TIPS in most centers but are still offered to patients who cannot tolerate a TIPS. However, surgery in this high-risk group is associated with the morbidity of general anesthesia. These shunts can now be inserted by radiologists with less risk as the procedure is done under local anesthesia. In addition, venous entry puncture can be more precise, and access is easier, with USG guidance. [38]


   Conclusion Top


There are various interventional procedures that can be offered to patients with PHT. The choice of the procedure is based on the etiology of PHT, the symptoms, the clinical status, and the results of imaging studies. Most procedures now offer high success rates, good mid- and long-term results, and significantly less morbidity than the corresponding surgical procedures, and this has led to the emergence of interventional radiology as the procedure of choice in controlling PHT and its complications.

 
   References Top

1.Rφsch J, Hanafee WN, Snow H. Transjugular portal venography and radiologic portacaval shunt: An experimental study. Radiology 1969;92:1112-4.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Boyer TD, Haskal ZJ. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases practice guidelines: The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in the management of portal hypertension. Hepatology 2005;41:386-400.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Ferral H, Patel NH. Selection criteria for patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures: Current status. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:449-55.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Cabrera J, Manyar M, Granados R, Gorriz E, Reyes R, Pulido-Duque JM, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus sclerotherapy in the elective treatment of variceal hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 1996;110:832-9.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Rossle M, Deibert P, Haag K, Ochs A, Olchewski M, Siegerstetter V, et al . Randomised trial of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus endoscopy plus propranolol for prevention of variceal rebleeding. Lancet 1997;249:1043-9.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Sauer P, Theilmann L, Stremmel W, Benz C, Richter GM, Stiehl A. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent versus sclerotherapy plus propranolol for rebleeding. Gastroenterology 1997;113:1623-31.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Sanyal AJ, Freedman AM, Luketic VA, Purdum PP 3 rd , ­Shiffman ML, Cole PE, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt ­compared with endoscopic sclerotherapy for the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:849-57.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Cello JP, Ring EJ, Olcott EW, Koch J, Gordon R, Sandhu J, et al . Endoscopic sclerotherapy compared with percutaneous transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt after initial sclerotherapy in patients with acute variceal hemorrhage: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Int Med 1997;126:858-65.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Jalan R, Forrest EH, Stanley AJ, Redhead DN, Forbes J, Dillon JF. A randomized trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent-shunt with variceal band ligation in the prevention of rebleeding from esophageal varices. Hepatology 1997;26:1115.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Merli M, Salerno F, Riggio O, deFranchis R, Fiaccadori F, Meddi P, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus ­endoscopic sclerotherapy for the prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: A randomized multicenter trial. Gruppo Italiano Studio TIPS (GIST). Hepatology 1998;27:48-53.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Groupe d'Etude des Anastomoses Intra-Hepatiques. TIPS vs sclerotherapy + propranolol in the prevention of variceal rebleeding: Preliminary results of a multicenter randomized trial. ­Hepatology 1995;22:A297.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Garcia-Villareal L, Martinez-Lagares F, Sierra A, Guevera C, ­Marrero JM, Jiminez E, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt versus sclerotherapy for the prevention of variceal rebleeding after recent variceal hemorrhage. Hepatology 1999:29:27-32.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Sauer P, Benz C, Thielmann L, Richter G, Stermmel W, Stiehl A. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS) vs endoscopic banding in the prevention of variceal rebleeding: Final results of a randomized study. Gastroenterology 1998;114:A1334.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Pomier-Layrargues G, Villeneuve JP, Deschenes M, Bui B, ­Perrault P, Fenyves D, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) versus endoscopic variceal ligation in the prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis: A randomized trial. Gut 2001;48:390-6.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Narahara Y, Kanawaza H, Kawamata H, Tada N, Saitoh H, ­Matsuzaka S, et al . A randomized clinical trial comparing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with endoscopic sclerotherapy in the long-term management of patients with cirrhosis after recent variceal hemorrhage. Hepatol Res 2001;21:189-98.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Gulberg V, Schepke M, Geigenberger G, Holl J, Brensing KA, Waggerhauser T, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting is not superior to endoscopic variceal band ligation for prevention of variceal rebleeding in cirrhotic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002;37:338-43.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Rossle M, Ochs A, Gulberg V, Siegerstetter V, Holl J, Deibert P, et al . A comparison of paracentesis and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting in patients with ascites. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1701-7.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Gines P, Uriz J, Calahorra B, Garcia-Tsao G, Kamath PS, Del Arbol LR, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting versus paracentesis plus albumin for refractory ascites in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2002;123:1839-47.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Sanyal AJ, Genning C, Reddy KR, Wong F, Kowdley KV, Benner K, et al . The North American study for the treatment of refractory ascites. Gastroenterology 2003;124:634-41.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Salerno F, Merli M, Riggio O, Cazzaniga M, Valeriano V, Pozzi M, et al . Randomized control study of TIPS versus paracentesis plus albumin in cirrhosis with severe ascites. Hepatology 2004;40:629-35.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Siegerstetter V, Deibert P, Ochs A, Olschewski M, Blum HE, Rossle M. Treatment of refractory hepatic hydrothorax with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: Long-term results in 40 patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001;13:529-34.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Darcy MD. Doppler evaluation of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Ultrasound Q 2003;19:56-70.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Hausegger KA, Kernel F, Georgieva B, et al . Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation with the Viatorr expanded polytetrafluoroehthylene-covered stent-graft. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:239-48.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Rossi P, Salvatori FM, Fanelli F, Bezzi M, Rossi M, Marcelli G. Polytetrafluoroethylene covered nitinol stent-graft for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation: 3-year experience. Radiology 2004;231:820-30.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Bureau C, Garcia-Pagan JC, Pomier-Layrargues G, Metivier S, Otal P, Perreault P, et al . A randomized study comparing the use of polytetrafluoroethane (PTFE) covered stents and uncovered stents for TIPS: Long term patency. Hepatology 2004;40:186A.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Maleux G, Verslype C, Heye S, Wilms G, Marchal G, Nevens F. Endovascular shunt reduction in the management of transjugular portosystemic shunt-induced hepatic encephalopathy: Preliminary experience with reduction stents and stent-grafts. Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:659-64.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Qiaoa T, Liua CJ, Liua C, Chena K, Zhanga XB, Zub MH. Interventional endovascular treatment of Budd-Chiari syndrome with long-term follow-up. Swiss Med Wkly 2005;135:318-26.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Rossle M, Olschewski M, Siegerstetter V, Berger E, Kurz K, Grandt D. The Budd-Chiari syndrome: Outcome after treatment with the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Surgery 2004;135:394-403.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Khuroo MS, Al-Suhabani H, Al-Sebayel M, Al Ashgar H, Dahab S, Khan MQ, et al . Budd-Chiari syndrome: Long term effect on outcome with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;20:1494-502.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Yamakado K, Nakatsuka A, Tanaka N, Fujii A, Isaji S, Kawarada Y, et al . Portal venous stent placement in patients with pancreatic and biliary neoplasms invading portal veins and causing portal hypertension: Initial experience. Radiology 2001;220:150-6.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Shan H, Xiao XS, Huang MS, Ouyang Q, Jiang ZB. Portal venous stent placement for treatment of portal hypertension caused by benign main portal vein stenosis. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:3315-8.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Vauthey JN, Tomczak RJ, Helmberger T, Gertsch P, Forsmark C, Caridi J, et al . The arterioportal fistula syndrome: Clinicopathologic features, diagnosis and therapy. Gastroenterology 1997;113:1390-401.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Koconis KG, Singh H, Soares G. Partial splenic embolization in the treatment of patients with portal hypertension: A review of the English language literature. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007;18:463-81.  Back to cited text no. 33    
34.Lunderquist A, Simert G, Tylen U, Vang J. Follow-up of patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices treated with percutaneous obliteration of gastric coronary vein. Radiology 1977;122:59-63.  Back to cited text no. 34    
35.L'Hermine C, Chastanet P, Delemazure O, Bonniere PL, Durieu JP, Paris JC. Percutaneous transhepatic embolization of gastroesophageal varices: Results in 400 patients. Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:755-60.  Back to cited text no. 35    
36.Choi YH, Yoon CJ, Park JH, Chung JW, Kwon JW, Choi GM. ­Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration for gastric variceal bleeding: Its feasibility compared with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt. Korean J Radiol 2003;4:109-16.  Back to cited text no. 36    
37.Ninoi T, Nishida N, Kaminou T, Sakai Y, Kitayama T, Hamuro M, et al . Balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration of gastric varices with gastrorenal shunt: Long-term follow-up in 78 patients. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1340-6.  Back to cited text no. 37    
38.Park JS, Jong YW, Park SI, Park SJ, Lee DY. Percutaneous peritoneovenous shunt creation for the treatment of benign and malignant refractory ascites. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:1445-8.  Back to cited text no. 38    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Sundeep J Punamiya
Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, 308433
Singapore
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.41840

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Clinical analysis of long-term outcomes of re-intervention of transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt
Liu, F.-Q. and Yue, Z.-D. and Zhao, H.-W. and Wang, L. and Li, Z.-W. and Yu, L.-X. and Li, H.-W. and Jin, B. and Fan, Z.-H. and Zhao, M.-F. and Yao, J.-N. and Zuo, L.
Chinese Journal of Radiology (China). 2012; 46(9): 830-835
[Pubmed]
2 Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS); review of initial experience at Aga Khan University Hospital
Hamid, R.S., Tanveer-ul-Haq, Azeemuddin, M., Sajjad, Z., Chishti, I., Salam, B.
Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2011; 61(4): 336-339
[Pubmed]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
    Interventions in PHT
    Recanalization o...
    Embolization of ...
    Partial Splenic ...
    Percutaneous Tra...
    Balloon-occluded...
    Percutaneous Per...
    Conclusion
    Recanalization o...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7929    
    Printed192    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded1038    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal