The venous trunk of henle (gastrocolic trunk): A systematic review and meta-analysis of its prevalence, dimensions, and tributary variations.

Surgeons have recognized the clinical significance of the venous trunk of Henle during multiple pancreatic, colorectal, and hepatobiliary procedures. To date, no study has followed the principles of evidence-based anatomy to characterize it. Our aim was to find, gather, and systematize available anatomical data concerning this structure. The MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciELO, and Web of Science databases were searched. The following data were extracted: prevalence of the trunk of Henle, its mean diameter and length, the organization of its tributaries, method of anatomical assessment (cadaveric, radiological, or intraoperative), geographical origin, study sample, and known health status. Our search identified 38 records that included data from 2,686 subjects. Overall, the prevalence of the trunk of Henle was 86.9% (95% CI, 0.81-0.92) and the mean diameter was 4.2 mm. Only one study reported the length of the trunk (10.7 mm). The most common type of venous trunk (56.1%) was a vessel comprising three tributaries: gastric (right gastro-epiploic vein), pancreatic (most commonly the anterior superior pancreaticoduodenal vein), and colic (most commonly the superior right colic vein). The trunk of Henle is a common variant in the anatomy of the portal circulation. It is a highly variable vessel, but the most common type is a gastro-pancreato-colic trunk. In surgical practice, the presence of this venous trunk poses a high risk for bleeding, but it can also be a useful landmark during various abdominal procedures. Clin. Anat. 31:1109-1121, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Microvascular reconstruction in salvaging the gastric conduit post-esophagectomy after iatrogenic right gastroepiploic vessel injury.

The preservation of the right gastroepiploic vessels is essential to ensure proper perfusion of the gastric conduit following esophagectomy. The loss of these vessels can lead to conduit ischemia or necrosis, resulting in significant postoperative complications. Traditional approaches such as colonic or jejunal interposition require extensive surgery and multiple anastomoses. In this report, we present our successful experience of salvaging the gastric tube through microvascular reconstruction following iatrogenic injury to the right gastroepiploic vessels in two cases. The first case involved re-anastomosis of the right gastroepiploic vein, while the second case required reconstruction of both the artery and vein during esophagectomy in a single setting. The procedures were performed by an experienced surgical team using microvascular techniques. Both patients had uneventful postoperative courses without any anastomotic leakage or major complications. Adequate perfusion of the salvaged gastric tube was confirmed intraoperatively using indocyanine green fluorescence perfusion imaging. In conclusion, immediate microvascular reconstruction offers a viable solution by restoring perfusion of the gastric tube in cases of right gastroepiploic vessel injury during esophagectomy.

Total pancreatectomy with remnant stomach preservation in a patient with a history of proximal gastrectomy and interposed jejunal reconstruction with right gastroepiploic conduit preservation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic head resection following proximal gastrectomy jeopardizes the blood flow of the remnant stomach owing to right gastroepiploic conduit sacrifice, thereby necessitating total gastrectomy. However, owing to its high invasiveness, concomitant remnant total gastrectomy with pancreatectomy should be avoided as much as possible. Herein, we describe our experience of total pancreatectomy with right gastroepiploic conduit preservation in a patient with a history of proximal gastrectomy and reconstruction by jejunum interposition. CASE PRESENTATION: A 78-year-old woman with a history of gastric cancer was followed up at our institute for multiple intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and main pancreatic duct stricture in the pancreatic head was newly detected. The cystic lesion was extended to the pancreatic body. Proximal gastrectomy and reconstruction by jejunal interposition were previously performed, and the mesenteric stalk of the interposed jejunum was approached through the retrocolic route. We planned total pancreatectomy with right gastroepiploic conduit preservation. Following adhesiolysis, the interposed jejunum and its mesentery lying in front of the pancreas were isolated. The arterial arcade from the common hepatic artery to the right gastroepiploic artery was detached from the pancreas. Furthermore, the right gastroepiploic vein was isolated from the pancreas. The pancreatic body and tail were pulled up in front of the remnant stomach, and the splenic artery and vein were resected. The pancreatic body and tail were pulled out to the right side, and the pancreatic head was divided from the pancreatic nerve plexus to the portal vein. The jejunal limb for entero-biliary anastomosis was passed through the hole behind the superior mesenteric artery and vein, and gastrointestinal anastomosis using the antecolic route and Braun anastomosis were performed. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid remnant total gastrectomy, right gastroepiploic conduit preservation is an optional procedure for pancreatic head resection in patients who have undergone proximal gastrectomy with reconstruction by jejunal interposition.

Reconstruction with the right gastroepiploic vein during pancreaticoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy to prevent left-sided portal hypertension: a report of two cases.

BACKGROUND: Left-sided portal hypertension including gastric venous congestion may be caused by ligating the splenic vein during pancreaticoduodenectomy with portal vein resection or total pancreatectomy. The usefulness of reconstruction with the splenic vein has been reported in such cases. However, depending on the site of the tumor and other factors, it may be impossible to leave sufficient length of the splenic vein, making anastomosis difficult. We report two patterns of reconstruction with the right gastroepiploic vein during pancreaticoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy to prevent left-sided portal hypertension. CASE PRESENTATION: The first patient was a 79-year-old man who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The root of the splenic vein was infiltrated by the tumor, and we resected this vein at the confluence of the portal vein. Closure of the portal vein was performed without reconstruction of the splenic vein. To prevent left-sided portal hypertension, we anastomosed the right gastroepiploic vein to the middle colic vein. Postoperatively, there was no suggestion of left-sided portal hypertension, such as splenomegaly, varices, and thrombocytosis. The second case was a 63-year-old woman who underwent total pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. The splenic vein-superior mesenteric vein confluence was infiltrated by the tumor, and we resected the portal vein, including the confluence. End-to-end anastomosis was performed without reconstruction of the splenic vein. We also divided the left gastric vein, left gastroepiploic vein, right gastroepiploic vein, and right gastric vein, which resulted in a lack of drainage veins from the stomach and severe gastric vein congestion. We anastomosed the right gastroepiploic vein to the left renal vein, which improved the gastric vein congestion. Postoperatively, imaging confirmed short-term patency of the anastomosis site. Although the patient died because of tumor progression 8 months after the surgery, no findings suggested left-sided portal hypertension, such as varices. Reconstruction with the right gastroepiploic vein during pancreaticoduodenectomy and total pancreatectomy is useful to prevent left-sided portal hypertension.

Simultaneous Vascular Reconstruction and Cervical Anastomosis in McKeown Esophagectomy.

A stomach was considered ineligible to be an ideal conduit conventionally if its right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA) were injured. However, both sufficient blood flow and good venous return are crucial to the success of reconstruction. And there lacks robust evidence regarding the surgical techniques of reconstructing RGEA and right gastroepiploic vein (RGEV) and performing cervical anastomosis with gastric conduit simultaneously. Herein, we summarized the key surgical techniques for simultaneous vascular reconstruction and gastric conduit anastomosis in McKeown esophagectomy.

[Clinical study on preserving right gastroepiploic vein during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy].

Objective: The operative approach and steps of laparoscopic right hemicolon cancer radical resection have been standardlized and professional consensus has been reached. However, some detailed issues such as the handling of Henle's trunk and whether to preserve the right gastroepiploic vein (RGEV) still remain controversial. This study investigates the safety, feasibility, short- and long-term outcomes of preserving RGEV during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out. Clinical data of 92 patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in Taizhou People's Hospital from March 2016 to May 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. All the patients were treated with complete mesocolon resection (CME) and had complete postoperative pathological data and follow-up data. Based on the tumor location, 49 patients preserved RGEV (preservation group) and 43 did not (non-preservation group). Pathological data, postoperative complications, short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups (all P>0.05). No significant differences were found in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, unplanned reoperation, anastomotic leak, number of harvested lymph nodes, number of metastatic lymph node, and time to food intake after surgery between two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with non-preservation group, the preservation group had faster recovery of anal gas passage after operation [(3.1±1.0) days vs. (4.0±1.7) days, t=-2.787, P=0.007], shorter length of hospitalization [(11.5±1.5) days vs. (15.0±7.9) days, t=-2.823, P=0.007], and reduced the hospitalization expenses [(46 000±5000) yuan to (57 000±33 000) yuan, t=-2.076, P=0.044]. No postoperative gastroparesis (PGS) occurred in the preservation group, while 6 cases in the non-preservation group developed gastroparesis during perioperative period (P<0.05). The median time of follow-up time was 31.8 (5.2-43.7) months. The overall survival time of the preservation group and non-preservation group was (35.4±1.8) months and (37.6±1.7) months, respectively without significant difference (P=0.336); the disease-free survival was (32.0±2.2) months and (35.5±2.0) months, respectively without significant difference as well (P=0.201). Conclusions: Dissection of the Henle's truck and preservation of RGEV is safe and feasible during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, which can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative gastroparesis, shorten the recovery time of postoperative intestinal function and hospitalization, and decrease the cost of hospitalization. The efficacy of RGEV preservation is similar to non-preservation of RGEV.

The Anatomy Features and Variations of the Point Where Right Gastroepiploic Vein Flows into Superior Mesenteric Vein/Portal Vein: Anatomical Study of Catheterization of Portal Vein Infusion Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: To study the anatomical features and classification of the angle between the right gastroepiploic vein (RGEV) and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) and to guide the catheterization of intraportal infusion chemotherapy through RGEV and reduce surgical complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography study was undertaken on 200 consecutive subjects with or without hepatic malignant tumors with a dedicated workstation 3D-MIA (the improved MI-3DVS workstation) developed by ourselves to determine the prevalence of surgically significant angle between RGEV and SMV/PV anatomic variations and its classification. RESULTS: The mean value of the angles between the end of RGEV and SMV/PV (AERS/P) (200 cases) was 84.2° ± 23.8 (31.4°-151.5°): 40.6° ± 92.3 (-177.9° to 178.0°) (sagittal angle), 81.7° ± 29.8 (-79.3° to 160.7°) (coronal angle), and 10.5° ± 94.3 (-178.7° to 175.8°) (horizontal angle). The mean value of the angles between the right bend of RGEV and SMV/PV (ARRS/P) (168 cases) was 104.8° ± 26.1 (20.5°-159.7°):49.3° ± 117.8 (-175.3° to 179.5°) (sagittal angle), 103.5° ± 37.7 (-178.8° to 168.9°) (coronal angle), and 12.6° ± 102.8 (-179.9° to 179.2°) (horizontal angle). The AERS/P were classified into large angle group (32 cases, 16%), middle angle group (113 cases, 56.5%), and small angle group (55 cases, 27.5%) based on angle variations and risks of catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: Precognition of the variations of AERS/P and ARRS/P before surgery is useful during chemotherapy pump catheterizing through RGEV in reduction of surgical complications by modulating the angle and direction of RGEV running into SMV/PV properly.