Use of Accessory Hepatic Vein Intervention in the Treatment of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity99 @entity6323 @entity3181
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical value of accessory hepatic vein (AHV) intervention in the treatment of @entity3181 ( @entity3181 ). @entity1 AND METHODS: From August 2008 to July 2014, consecutive @entity1 with @entity3181 caused by @entity6323 (IVC) were treated by recanalization or transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in our center. @entity1 who had the compensatory AHV and successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow were enrolled in this retrospective study. The clinical response to AHV drainage was analyzed. RESULTS: Compensatory AHV was found in 69 of 97 (71.1  %) @entity1 , and 66 @entity1 successfully underwent recanalization of AHV outflow (IVC recanalization, n  =  49; AHV recanalization, n  =  15; both, n  =  2). In total, 78 AHVs were used instead of HV as the hepatic drainage vein after treatment. Fifty-five @entity1 had one AHV, 10 @entity1 had two AHVs, and 1 @entity1 had three AHVs. The average diameter of all AHV stems was 8.0      2.6  mm (range 5-21  mm). Clinical response to AHV drainage was positive in all @entity1 . @entity1 ' symptoms and liver function improved progressively after treatment. During the follow-up of 3-74  months (average 39.4      11.0  months), 11 @entity1 experienced reobstruction at 6 to 36  months (average 16.8      9.8  months) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Compensatory AHV can be effectively used instead of HV for @entity99 in @entity1 with @entity3181 . AHV intervention can help to simplify the @entity3181 treatment procedure.
