2011World Journal of SurgeryRequires access

Anatomical Variations of Hepatic Veins: Three‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans of 200 Subjects

Chi‐Hua Fang, Jin‐Hua You, Wan Yee Lau, Eric C. H. Lai, Yingfang Fan, Shizhen Zhong, Ke-xiao Li, Zhixiang Chen, Zhong-he Su, Bao Su-su

Open publisher page 90 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of hepatic venous anatomic variations on hepatic resection and transplantation is the least understood aspect of liver surgery. METHODS: A prospective three-dimensional computed tomography study was undertaken on 200 consecutive subjects with normal livers to determine the prevalence of surgically significant hepatic venous anatomic variations. RESULTS: The prevailing pattern of the three hepatic veins in these subjects was a right hepatic vein (RHV) and a common trunk for the middle (MHV) and left (LHV) hepatic veins (122/200, 61%). The remaining patients had the RHV, MHV, and LHV draining independently into the inferior vena cava (IVC). In 39% of patients, the RHV was small and was compensated by a large right inferior hepatic vein (21.0%), an accessory RHV (8.5%) or a well-developed MHV (6.5%). A segment 4 vein was seen in 51.5% of patients. This segment 4 vein joined the LHV (26%), the MHV (17.5%), or the IVC (8%). An umbilical vein and a segment 4 vein were seen in 3.5% of patients. These two veins joined either the LHV (2.0%) or the MHV (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the variations of hepatic veins before surgery is useful during both partial hepatectomy and donor operations for living related liver transplantation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: The impact of hepatic venous anatomic variations on hepatic resection and transplantation is the least understood aspect of liver surgery. METHODS: A prospective three-dimensional computed tomography study was undertaken on 200 consecutive subjects with normal livers to determine the prevalence of surgically significant hepatic venous anatomic variations. RESULTS: The prevailing pattern of the three hepatic veins in these subjects was a right hepatic vein (RHV) and a common trunk for the middle (MHV) and left (LHV) hepatic veins (122/200, 61%). The remaining patients had the RHV, MHV, and LHV draining independently into the inferior vena cava (IVC). In 39% of patients, the RHV was small and was compensated by a large right inferior hepatic vein (21.0%), an accessory RHV (8.5%) or a well-developed MHV (6.5%). A segment 4 vein was seen in 51.5% of patients. This segment 4 vein joined the LHV (26%), the MHV (17.5%), or the IVC (8%). An umbilical vein and a segment 4 vein were seen in 3.5% of patients. These two veins joined either the LHV (2.0%) or the MHV (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the variations of hepatic veins before surgery is useful during both partial hepatectomy and donor operations for living related liver transplantation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 90 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of hepatic venous anatomic variations on hepatic resection and transplantation is the least understood aspect of liver surgery. METHODS: A prospective three-dimensional computed tomography study was undertaken on 200 consecutive subjects with normal livers to determine the prevalence of surgically significant hepatic venous anatomic variations. RESULTS: The prevailing pattern of the three hepatic veins in these subjects was a right hepatic vein (RHV) and a common trunk for the middle (MHV) and left (LHV) hepatic veins (122/200, 61%). The remaining patients had the RHV, MHV, and LHV draining independently into the inferior vena cava (IVC). In 39% of patients, the RHV was small and was compensated by a large right inferior hepatic vein (21.0%), an accessory RHV (8.5%) or a well-developed MHV (6.5%). A segment 4 vein was seen in 51.5% of patients. This segment 4 vein joined the LHV (26%), the MHV (17.5%), or the IVC (8%). An umbilical vein and a segment 4 vein were seen in 3.5% of patients. These two veins joined either the LHV (2.0%) or the MHV (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the variations of hepatic veins before surgery is useful during both partial hepatectomy and donor operations for living related liver transplantation.

Key concepts: Medicine, Hepatic veins, Inferior vena cava, Vein, Hepatectomy, Liver transplantation, Computed tomography, Radiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Anatomical Variations of Hepatic Veins: Three‐Dimensional Computed Tomography Scans of 200 Subjects — Research Paper | ScholarLens