ArticleSurgical case reports2025
Usefulness of A Portal Vein Stent for Sinistral Portal Hypertension: A Case Report.
Article in Surgical case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPortal vein (PV) and splenic vein (SV) stenosis are known complications of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and often lead to portal hypertension. PV stenosis extending to the SV confluence can result in sinistral portal hypertension (SPH), characterized by gastrointestinal varices and splenomegaly in the presence of normal liver function. There is no standardized treatment strategy for SPH following PD. CASE PRESENTATION: A 42-year-old female underwent robot-assisted PD for a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor without immediate PV complications. Postoperatively, the patient experienced fluid retention; however, this did not pose a problem, and no therapeutic intervention was necessary. Two months later, imaging revealed PV stenosis and SV obstruction. Eleven months after surgery, the patient presented with melena, and imaging confirmed the presence of gastroesophageal varices with severe PV stenosis and complete SV obstruction. Endoscopic variceal ligation was performed, and the hemodynamic status of the portal system was assessed using computed tomography during arterial portography (CTAP). CTAP showed communication between the superior mesenteric vein and the SV via the middle colic vein. Therefore, we decided to perform PV stenting. The stent was successfully placed, resulting in a significant improvement in the esophageal varices. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 4, receiving anticoagulant therapy, with no further complications.
conclusionsThis case demonstrates the efficacy of PV stenting after careful hemodynamic assessment in a patient who developed SPH due to PV stenosis and SV obstruction following PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.