Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging features of regional portal hypertension

Objective To investigate the features of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of regional portal hypertension (RPH) . Methods The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 31 patients with PHR in the RPH group and 31 patients with liver cirrhotic portal hypertension (CPH) in the CPH group who were admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University between February 2014 and February 2018 were collected. Etiologies of patients in the RPH group included 21 of chronic pancreatitis complicated with pancreatic pseudocyst, 5 of carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail, 1 of solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas, 1 of pancreatic serotls cystoadenoma, 1 of gastric stromal tumor, 1 of retroperitoneal metastatic tumor and 1 of left renal carcinoma. Etiologies of patients in the CPH group included 27 of liver cirrhosis after viral hepatitis type B (4 complicated with liver metastasis), 3 of alcoholic cirrhosis and 1 of cholestatic cirrhosis. All the patients underwent CT and MRI examinations. Patients in the RPH group were mainly treated the primary diseases and patients in the CPH group were decreased portal vein pressure. Observation indicators: (1) imaging features of patients in the two groups; (2) treatment and follow-up situations. Follow-up using outpatient examination and telephone interview were performed to detect management of portal hypertension after treatment up to February 2018. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as ±s and comparison between groups was analyzed by the t test. Measurement data were represented as M (range) and comparison between groups was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Count data were compared with chi-square test. Results (1) Imaging features of patients in the two groups: of 31 patients in the RPH group, 12 underwent CT examination, 2 underwent MRI examination, and 17 underwent CT combine with MRI examination. Of 31 patients in the CPH group, 12 underwent CT examination and 19 underwent CT combined with MRI examination. The number of patients with varices in the gastric fundus, the number of patients with combined esophageal varices, the number of perigastric varices, diameter of main portal vein, diameter of splenic vein, liver volume, splenic volume, hepatosplenic volume ratio were 11, 1, 49, (13.9±2.9)mm, (12.0±2.8)mm, 1 383 cm3(range, 1 005-1 637 cm3), 271 cm3(range, 199-311 cm3) and 5.5±2.0 in the RHP group and 24, 21, 33, (16.3±1.7)mm, (10.5±3.2)mm, 1 087 cm3(range, 916-1 536 cm3), 603 cm3(range, 415-869 cm3) and 2.2±0.9 in the CHP group, with statistically significant differences in the number of patients with varices in the gastric fundus, the number of patients with combined esophageal varices, the number of perigastric varices, diameter of main portal vein, splenic volume, hepatosplenic volume ratio between the two groups (χ2=11.088, 28.182, 8.940, t=4.430, Z=6.205, t=8.544, P<0.05) and with no statistically significant differences in the diameter of splenic vein and liver volume between the two groups (t=1.974, Z=1.162, P<0.05). Of 31 patients in the RPH group, 2 with pancreatic pseudocyst were misdiagnosed as pancreatic cancer and 29 were diagnosed accurately by imaging examinations. Of 31 patients in the CPH group, 3 with liver metastasis were undetected by CT examination and the other 28 were diagnosed accurately by imaging examinations. Splenic vein occlusion, severe splenic vein stenosis, moderate splenic vein stenosis and mild splenic vein stenosis were detected in 2, 17, 10 and 2 of 31 patients in the RHP group. All the 31 patients in the CHP group mainly had dilation in splenic veins, with no clear stenosis. (2) Treatment and follow-up situations: patients in the two groups were followed up for 6-48 months, with a median time of 21 months. Of 21 patients with chronic pancreatitis complicated with pancreatic pseudocyst in the RPH group, 7 underwent pancreatic pseudocyst puncture and drainage, 6 of them had poor control on portal hypertension and 1 had moderate control; 4 underwent pancreaticoenteric drainage, 1 of them underwent pancreaticojejunostomy 4 years later and 3 of them had good control on portal hypertension; 3 undergoing splenectomy combined with perigastrectomy had good control on portal hypertension; 7 undergoing conservative treatment had good control on portal hypertension. Of 5 patients with carcinoma of pancreatic body and tail in the RHP group, 2 undergoing distal pancreatectomy combined with splenectomy had good control on portal hypertension and 3 undergoing non-operative combined therapy died of primary disease one year later. One, 1 and 1 patient with solid pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas, pancreatic serotls cystoadenoma and gastric stromal tumor respectively in the RHP group underwent relative surgical treatments and had good control on portal hypertension. One and 1 patient with retroperitoneal metastatic tumor and left renal carcinoma respectively in the RHP group underwent non-operative combined therapy and had good control on portal hypertension. All the 31 patients in the CHP group were mainly treated with protection of liver function, 8 of them were encounted with medusa head, 7 with upper gastrointestinal rehemorrhage within one year, 5 with subcutaneous varicose vein of abdominal wall, 3 with continuing increase of spleen volume and 8 had good control on portal hypertension. Conclusions RHP are existed in pancreatic, splenic or peritoneal diseases, especially the pancreatic primary diseases. The main imaging features of RHP include isolated gastric varices, perigastric varices and splenic vein occlusion without normal main portal vein and liver function. Surgical resection of primary tumor and reasonable splenectomy are effective therapy. Key words: Regional Portal Hypertension; Cirrhosis Portal Hypertension; Tomography; X-ray computed; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diagnosis