Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology / 2018 / Article

Comment on “Establishing a Porcine Model of Small for Size Syndrome following Liver Resection”

  • Antonios Athanasiou | Eleftherios Spartalis | ... | Emmanouil Pikoulis |
  •  Article ID 4915817 |
  •  Published 22 May 2018

Response to: Comment on “Establishing a Porcine Model of Small for Size Syndrome following Liver Resection”

  • Mohammad Golriz | Elias Khajeh | ... | Arianeb Mehrabi |
  •  Article ID 7565408 |
  •  Published 19 Aug 2018
  • | View Article

Letter to the Editor | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 4915817 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4915817

Antonios Athanasiou, Eleftherios Spartalis, Mairead Hennessy, Michael Spartalis, Emmanouil Pikoulis, "Comment on “Establishing a Porcine Model of Small for Size Syndrome following Liver Resection”", Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 2018, Article ID 4915817, 2 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4915817

Comment on “Establishing a Porcine Model of Small for Size Syndrome following Liver Resection”

Academic Editor: Pierluigi Toniutto
Received26 Aug 2017
Accepted31 Jan 2018
Published22 May 2018

We read with great interest the article by Golriz et al. [1] published in the August 2017 issue of Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The aim of this research study was to establish a porcine model of small for size syndrome (SFSS). The authors divided 24 Landrace pigs into 3 groups according to the remnant liver volume; group A, group B, and group C underwent liver resection with a remnant liver volume of 50%, 25%, and 15%, respectively. Gorliz and his colleagues conclude that 75% liver resection in porcine model results in SFSS. This is a very interesting research manuscript in our understanding regarding the establishment of a porcine model of small for size syndrome after extended hepatectomy. However, there are some questions which demand further consideration.

To start with, this study does not include either any information as regards the monitoring of portal vein flow and pressure or any measurement of hepatic artery flow and pressure. Animal experiments managed to prove that portal hemodynamic changes are considered to be the most important mechanisms of posthepatectomy liver failure [26]. Same results have been proven in clinical practice [79]. For this reason we believe that is not only insufficient, but also unreliable to assess precisely the 3 surgical models that the authors studied. Furthermore, recent publications demonstrated that reliable porcine models for SFSS have to include apart from the hemodynamic measurements of portal vein and hepatic artery the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) [10, 11]. Significant increase in HVPG immediately after liver resection and 7 days after hepatectomy has strong correlation with the manifestation of SFSS [10, 11].

Furthermore, our literature review and our recent experiments for the investigation of SFSS in porcine model showed that only after 80% liver resection, this model proved to be appropriate for the study of SFSS [5, 1218]. The remnant liver volume after this resection in combination with portal hyperperfusion and hypertension results in a significant reduction of the hepatic portal vascular bed, which means dramatic increase of pressure and flow per grammar of liver tissue [19]. This condition leads to hepatic sinusoidal injury and severe hepatocellular damage. The histopathological and laboratory findings, survival rate, liver regeneration, and apoptosis and also the portal hemodynamic changes 7 days after 80% liver resection are similar to the clinical manifestations of SFSS [1216].

Last but not least, Golriz et al. report at the conclusion of the manuscript that 75% liver resection in porcine model results in SFSS, while 85% liver resection causes irreversible liver failure. However, this study has not proved that 85% liver resection in porcine model creates nonreversible liver failure. This is because the researches did not apply any measures for the improvement of liver function postoperatively, which means that this is only a hypothesis and not a conclusion [20]. As many studies proved during the last decade, porcine model after 85% liver resection could survive for more than 14 days postoperatively [5, 21, 22].

According to the recent studies, it was demonstrated that hypoxia probably plays a major role for the triggering of liver regeneration [23]. Greater rapid hypertrophy after liver resection could be explained not only by portal hypertension and hyperflow, but also by hypoxia which reverse arterial buffer response [13, 24, 25]. The histological evaluation of hepatocyte proliferation in the 3 groups by measuring Ki-67 proliferative index and nuclear factor kappa-beta expression should be really interesting. By doing so, Golriz et al. should be able to evaluate more accurately the liver regeneration among the 3 groups [1].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

References

  1. M. Golriz, M. Ashrafi, E. Khajeh, A. Majlesara, C. Flechtenmacher, and A. Mehrabi, “Establishing a porcine model of small for size syndrome following liver resection,” Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 2017, Article ID 5127178, 8 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. X.-Q. Wang, Y.-F. Xu, J.-W. Tan et al., “Portal inflow preservation during portal diversion in small-for-size syndrome,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1021–1029, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. D.-D. Wang, Y. Xu, Z.-M. Zhu et al., “Should temporary extracorporeal continuous portal diversion replace meso/porta-caval shunts in “small-for-size” syndrome in porcine hepatectomy?” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 888–896, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. P. Bucur, M. Bekheit, C. Audebert, I. Vignon-Clementel, and E. Vibert, “Simplified technique for 75% and 90% hepatic resection with hemodynamic monitoring in a large white swine model,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 209, pp. 122–130, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. L. Xiang, L. Huang, X. Wang, Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, and J. Tan, “How much portal vein flow is too much for liver remnant in a stable porcine model?” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 234–241, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. Athanasiou, E. Spartalis, T. Angelou, and E. Pikoulis, “The crucial role of portal flow after major liver resection: the “small-for-flow” syndrome may solve the mystery,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 217, pp. 235-236, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. R. Troisi, S. Ricciardi, P. Smeets et al., “Effects of hemi-portocaval shunts for inflow modulation on the outcome of small-for-size grafts in living donor liver transplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1397–1404, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. T. S. Helling, “Liver failure following partial hepatectomy,” HPB, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 165–174, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. G. Garcea and G. J. Maddern, “Liver failure after major hepatic resection,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 145–155, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. B. Darnis, K. Mohkam, Z. Schmitt et al., “Subtotal hepatectomy in swine for studying small-for-size syndrome and portal inflow modulation: Is it reliable?” HPB, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 881–888, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. K. Mohkam, B. Darnis, Z. Schmitt, S. Duperret, C. Ducerf, and J.-Y. Mabrut, “Successful modulation of portal inflow by somatostatin in a porcine model of small-for-size syndrome,” The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 212, no. 2, pp. 321–326, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. Athanasiou, A. Papalois, M. Kontos et al., “The beneficial role of simultaneous splenectomy after extended hepatectomy: experimental study in pigs,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 208, pp. 121–131, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Athanasiou, M. Kontos, E. Pikoulis et al., “Extended hepatectomy using the bipolar tissue sealer: An experimental model of small-for-size syndrome in pigs,” Journal of B.U.ON., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1403–1409, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  14. Q. Xia, T. F. Lu, and Z. H. Zhou, Extended hepatectomy with segments I and VII as resection remnant: a simple model for small-for-size injuries in pigs. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2008, vol. 7, 601-607, 2008.
  15. D. Pagano, F. Di Francesco, G. J. Echeverri et al., “Development of a standardized model for liver failure in pigs: Anatomopathophysiologic findings after extended liver resection,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 2029–2032, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. K. Hisakura, S. Murata, K. Fukunaga et al., “Platelets prevent acute liver damage after extended hepatectomy in pigs,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 855–864, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. Athanasiou and E. Spartalis, “Porcine models for the study of small-for-size syndrome,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. E6–E7, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Athanasiou, D. Moris, and E. Spartalis, “The ideal porcine model for major liver resection,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 210, pp. 196-197, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Athanasiou, C. Damaskos, S. Davakis, and E. Spartalis, “Correlation between the function of regenerating liver parenchyma and the small for size syndrome,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 217, pp. 238-239, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. A. Athanasiou, E. Spartalis, C. Damaskos, and D. Moris, “The potential role of preoperative portal vein embolization for the prevention of small-for-size syndrome,” Surgery, vol. 161, no. 6, pp. 1743-1744, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. F. G. Court, P. E. Laws, C. P. Morrison et al., “Subtotal hepatectomy: A porcine model for the study of liver regeneration,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 181–186, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. Y.-L. Tu, X. Wang, D.-D. Wang, Z.-M. Zhu, and J.-W. Tan, “Impact of mesocaval shunt on safe minimal liver remnant: Porcine model,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 19, no. 31, pp. 5076–5084, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. Athanasiou, E. Felekouras, and D. Moris, “Mystery of liver regeneration after portal flow changes,” Annals of Surgery, p. 1, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. D. Moris and T. M. Pawlik, “Liver hypoxia as a trigger to liver regeneration: No more than another piece of the puzzle,” Surgery, vol. 161, no. 4, pp. 1176-1177, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. Athanasiou, E. Spartalis, M. Hennessy et al., “Effects of terlipressin versus splenectomy on liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy in rats: what we know so far?” Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 91-92, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Antonios Athanasiou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views674
Downloads306
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.