4.1 Article

Assessment of remnant liver function and volume after selective ligation of portal vein and hepatic artery in a rat model

期刊

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/s0102-865020190110000003

关键词

Hepatectomy; Liver Regeneration; Liver Failure; Portal Vein; Hepatic Artery; Rats

类别

资金

  1. Clinica de Diagnostico por Imagem (CDPI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate liver regeneration after selective ligation of portal vein and hepatic artery by 3D Computed Tomography in an experimental model. Methods: Sixteen Wistar rats were randomized into four equal groups: Group I- control (sham), Group II- isolated selective ligation of the hepatic artery, Group III- isolated selective ligation of the portal vein and Group IV- combined ligation of portal vein and hepatic artery. Before procedure and five days after a 3D CT Scan was performed to analyze the hypertrophy, weight and function of the remnant liver. Results: The largest regeneration rate and increase of weight in the hypertrophied lobe was detected in group IV, the first with an average of 3.99 (p=0.006) and the last varying from 6.10g to 9.64g (p=0.01). However, total liver weight and the R1 ratio (Hypertrophied Lobe Weight /Total Liver Weight) was higher in group III (P<0.001) when compared with groups I, II and IV and showed no difference between them. The immunohistochemical examination with PCNA also found higher percentages with statistical significance differences in rats of groups III and IV. It was possible to confirm a strong correlation between hypertrophied lobe weight and its imaging volumetric study. Liver function tests only showed a significant difference in serum gamma-glutamyltransferase and phosphorous. Conclusion: There is a largest liver regeneration after combined ligation of portal vein and hepatic artery and this evidence may improve the knowledge of surgical treatment of liver injuries, with a translational impact in anima nobile.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据