Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40148703›Full record

ArticleCVIR endovascular2025

Future liver remnant hypertrophy and postoperative outcomes: a retrospective comparison between segmental and main right portal vein embolization.

Elif Can, Aboelyazid Elkilany, Sophia Paparoditis, Bernhard Gebauer, Dominik Geisel, Felix Krenzien, Anne Pohrt, Wibke Uller, Michael Doppler, Sebastian Ebel and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Elif Can *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Aboelyazid Elkilany *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. aboelyazid.elkilany@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4311-0520
Sophia PaparoditisDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Bernhard GebauerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Dominik GeiselDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Felix KrenzienDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Anne PohrtInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Wibke UllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael DopplerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sebastian EbelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Holger GößmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Uli FehrenbachDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy of segmental right portal vein embolization (SRPVE) versus main right portal vein embolization (MRPVE) in preoperative preparation for major hepatectomy.

methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 220 consecutive patients who underwent portal vein embolization (PVE) before (extended) right hemihepatectomy between January 2014 and June 2021. Seventy-one patients underwent selective segmental embolization (SRPVE) and 149 patients underwent MRPVE. Volumetric analysis was conducted before PVE and before surgery. Key endpoints included evaluation of future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy, intraoperative complexity, and postoperative complications, technical success, clinical success, complications (Clavien-Dindo and CIRSE classifications), as well as evaluation of different factors which may influence hypertrophy of the FLR.

resultsTechnical success rate was 100% in the SRPVE group and 99.3% in the MRPVE group (p = 0.15). Clinical success rate was comparable between both techniques, measuring 95.8% in the SRPVE group and 95.3% in the MRPVE group (p = 0.18). Absolute hypertrophy (FLRabh) of the FLR was comparable between both techniques, measuring 47.15% in the SRPVE group and 40.78% in the MRPVE group (p = 0.54). Complication rates did not differ significantly (p = 0.12). Partial thrombosis involving the left portal vein, main portal vein, or mesentericosplenic region was observed in 2.8% of the patients in the SRPVE group vs 3.4% in the MRPVE group (p = 0.95). CIRSE Class II-VI complications were slightly higher in the MRPVE group (10.7% vs 9.8%, p = 0.82). Postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo class ≥ IIIa occurred in 10.1% % in the MRPVE group vs 9.9% the SRPVE group (p = 0.92). Liver cirrhosis had a significant negative correlation with sFLR % increase following PVE (r = -0.54; p = 0.027). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was also associated with reduced FLR hypertrophy following PVE, with a median sFLR% change of 63.8% (IQR: 60.8% - 75.2%) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 66 patients, 30%) compared to 82.6% (IQR: 77.4% - 84.2%) in those without chemotherapy (n = 154 patients, 70%).

conclusionSelective segmental right portal vein embolization, sparing the main right portal vein, offers a safe and effective alternative to MRPVE, achieving comparable FLR hypertrophy while potentially simplifying intraoperative procedures and reducing postprocedural complications. Future research should focus on conducting large, prospective, multicenter trials to further compare the long-term outcomes of this technique, particularly with regard to liver regeneration, postoperative liver function, complications and overall survival.

Indexed as

CIRSE classificationClavien-Dindo ClassificationFuture Liver Remnant (FLR)Liver HypertrophyPortal Vein Embolization (PVE)Right hemihepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID40148703
PMCPMC11950456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.