Skip to main content
Download PDF

Unlocking the potential of TIPS placement as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis and future directions for endovascular resuscitation in acute care surgery

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume 18, Article number: 30 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the evidence on transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients. We aimed to assess the perioperative characteristics, management approaches, and outcomes of this intervention, which is used to achieve portal decompression and enable the safe performance of elective and emergent surgery.

Methods

MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery with preoperative TIPS. The risk of bias was evaluated using the methodological index for non-randomized studies of interventions, and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case reports. The outcomes of interest were: 1. Surgery after TIPS; 2. Mortality; 3. Perioperative transfusions; and 4. Postoperative liver-related events. A DerSimonian and Laird (random-effects) model was used to perform the meta-analyses in which the overall (combined) effect estimate was presented in the form of an odds ratio (summary statistic).

Results

Of 426 patients (from 27 articles), 256 (60.1%) underwent preoperative TIPS. Random effects MA showed significantly lower odds of postoperative ascites with preoperative TIPS (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.72; I2 = 0%). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (3 studies: OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.33–1.77; I2 = 18.2%), perioperative transfusion requirement (3 studies: OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.28–2,84; I2 = 70.1%), postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (2 studies: OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.35–2.69; I2 = 0%), and postoperative ACLF (3 studies: OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.15–6.8, I2 = 78.9%).

Conclusions

Preoperative TIPS appears safe in cirrhotic patients who undergo elective and emergency surgery and may have a potential role in postoperative ascites control. Future randomized clinical trials should test these preliminary results.

Background

Portal hypertension (PH) is a key driver of hepatic decompensation and mortality among patients with advanced chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. PH in cirrhotic patients occurs due to increased intrahepatic resistance that induces systemic hemodynamic disturbances [1]. When the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) rises up to 10 mmHg (i.e., clinically significant portal hypertension) [2], patients may develop gastroesophageal varices or other portosystemic collaterals, but even more importantly, hepatic complications such as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, portal hypertensive bleeding or portal vein thrombosis [3].

Surgery, particularly major surgery, is one of the precipitants of acute decompensation in patients with cirrhosis and PH, and postoperative morbidity and mortality correlate with liver disease severity [4]. Consequently, surgery may be contraindicated in some patients with cirrhosis and PH. Therefore, surgeons often encounter challenging situations when evaluating patients with advanced cirrhosis who require elective or emergency surgeries in the context of acute care and general surgery. This is because the presence of advanced liver disease, such as portal hypertension, can impact the decision to perform a surgical procedure that would otherwise be performed without concern for complications and poor outcomes.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been used to manage complications related to PH, including portal hypertensive bleeding, ascites, and portal vein thrombosis [5]. It has been proposed that preoperative TIPS placement, by lowering portal pressure, would improve postoperative outcomes [5, 6]. Available evidence suggests that preoperative TIPS placement may be safe and could potentially reduce postoperative liver outcomes [7]. Unfortunately, we need more research to test the effects of TIPS in the field of surgery. Such research would be of particular interest to surgeons and other healthcare professionals caring for cirrhotic patients undergoing surgical procedures [8] and could inform clinical practice and guide future research efforts in this field.

To date, the role of TIPS in the preoperative setting of patients requiring elective and emergency surgery remains unclear. Moreover, little quantitative evidence is available to know the number of patients who can undergo surgery after preoperative TIPS and their associated postoperative outcomes; for example, postoperative liver-related events (LRE).

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the evidence on using transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients. We aimed to assess the perioperative characteristics, management approaches, and outcomes of this intervention, which is used to achieve portal decompression and enable the safe performance of surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative TIPS deployment reduces morbidity and mortality in cirrhotic patients undergoing surgery.

Methods

The present meta-analytic review adhered to the principles from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and was reported according to the PRISMA [9] and “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE) reporting guidelines [10].

To achieve our main objective, this SR and MA answered the following questions:

  1. 1.

    What is the available evidence on the use of TIPS as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients?

  2. 2.

    What are the reported effects of preoperative TIPS placement on the outcomes of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery?

Although not registered in PROSPERO, a protocol prepared before the review kickoff was used to guide the execution of the systematic review.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported the characteristics and outcomes of cirrhotic patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery with preoperative TIPS.

Exclusion criteria

Studies on cirrhotic patients undergoing hepatic surgery (i.e., hepatic resection or liver transplantation) and those involving subjects with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension were excluded.

Types of studies

We included observational studies of any type (case series, cohort studies, case–control studies). Case reports were also considered eligible for inclusion in this SR. Narrative reviews, commentaries, and editorials without patient data were not considered eligible for inclusion.

Types of patients and interventions

The participants were patients with liver cirrhosis of any etiology requiring elective or emergency surgery (i.e., extrahepatic cancer requiring resection, hernia surgery, cholecystectomy, among others) and undergoing preoperative TIPS to achieve portal decompression as means of mitigating the risks associated with PH. Preoperative TIPS to achieve portal decompression was defined as TIPS created in anticipation to surgery either as a prophylactic strategy or to treat a liver-related event (LRE) in progress at the time when surgery was planned/scheduled.

Outcomes

The outcomes of interest in this systematic review were: 1. Surgery following preoperative TIPS (# of patients who underwent surgery as planned following the preoperative TIPS procedure), 2. Mortality, 3. Perioperative transfusions requirements, and 4. Postoperative liver-related events (LRE). We intended to collect data on the following postoperative LREs (if available from primary studies): ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, portal hypertensive bleeding and acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). We also registered the timeframe from TIPS to surgery and if the surgical procedure was elective or emergent.

Search methods

An electronic database search strategy of the available literature was performed following experts’ recommendations. In addition, the literature search was planned according to the iterative process recommended by librarians from the National University of Singapore [11].

The literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus from inception to 28 August 2022. The search included keywords related to the population/patients of interest (cirrhotic patients requiring surgical procedures) and the intervention of interest (TIPS). The electronic database searching was complemented by a snowball scanning of the references cited in the included studies. Complete electronic search strategies are available in the Additional file 1.

Study selection

Results from the electronic search strategies were imported into Ryyan [12]. Then, titles and abstracts were initially screened by two authors (RM and JC) blindly and independently. In the title and abstract screening phase, potential articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria previously defined. Articles that appeared relevant during the initial screening phase of the study were retrieved as full texts and subsequently reviewed by two authors (RM and JC), who blindly and independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to full texts for final eligibility and inclusion.

When two articles appeared to be reporting data from overlapping populations (i.e., different papers reporting data from the same population or the exact center/hospital during overlapping periods), the publication with the larger sample size or greater/deepest data granularity was selected for inclusion.

Data collection

The full texts finally selected were reviewed in detail to collect data relevant to the topic of this SR. Data were extracted as reported in the selected studies and imported into a pre-designed data collection form, in which the following data were registered: authors, year of publication, region/hospital of origin, study type, recruitment period, number of patients, relevant demographic and clinical data, TIPS procedure characteristics, conditions requiring surgery, type of surgery performed (elective or emergent), cirrhosis etiology and Child–Pugh class. Relevant perioperative data, the timing between TIPS and surgery and outcomes data was collected.

In addition, each study’s objectives were extracted as reported in the included studies, and this information was documented in the Additional file 1: Table S1.

Risk of bias: critical appraisal

Different tools were used to appraise the studies and critically evaluate their risk of bias. For case series and comparative studies, we used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool to assess their quality and internal validity [13]. MINORS critically appraises non-randomized studies across eight methodological domains in cases of observational studies without a comparison group (i.e., case series). For comparative studies, four additional items are evaluated. Each item in the MINORS tool was scored as 0: if not reported (Red: high risk of bias); 1: reported but inadequate (Yellow: unclear risk of bias); and 2: reported and adequate (Green: low risk of bias). The methodological quality of case reports was critically appraised through the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for case reports. The results of the appraisal of research evidence are presented in detail in the Additional file 1: Figs. S1 and S2.

Data synthesis: meta-analysis

The information collected from each study was summarized descriptively to chart the available literature. When available, we extracted data from comparative studies on the outcomes of interest: mortality and LREs. First, the number of individuals who did and did not experience the outcome in the treatment and control groups of each study was extracted into a 2 × 2 table. Then, a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall outcomes of TIPS compared to non-TIPS groups. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. An I2 > 75% revealed high heterogeneity. All analyses were performed in Stata statistical software.

Results

Electronic database searching found 564 records (titles and abstracts), of which 25 were eligible for inclusion in this SR. In the full-text review, three studies were excluded, leaving 22 articles for inclusion. After conducting a snowball scanning of the references cited in these 22 articles, five additional references were found. Therefore, twenty-seven articles were finally included in the SR [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Of these, four were comparative studies, of which three were evaluated as appropriate to combine in meta-analyses [19, 37, 40]. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA diagram for the selection of the studies.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Characteristics of the included studies

As shown in Table 1, the 27 articles included in this SR were published between 1995 and 2022. Of these, eleven recruited participants are from the USA. Fifteen were from Europe: Italy (n = 4), France (n = 4), UK (n = 4), Spain (n = 2), and Germany (n = 1); the remaining study was from Canada. More than half (n = 15, 55%) of the articles were case reports, eight (30%) were case series, and four (15%) were comparative studies.

Table 1 Study level data (study characteristics and patients’ information)
Full size table

Additional file 1: Table S1 presents each study’s objectives. This information reveals that the studies were homogeneous regarding the populations and the aims for which TIPS were created. In all studies, TIPS was placed as a preoperative adjunct to achieve portal decompression under the assumption that portal pressure reduction would diminish the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Characteristics of participants

The studies in this SR recruited 426 patients. Of these patients, 264 underwent perioperative TIPS creation. The remaining patients were controls without TIPS, of which 15 were reported in a case series of patients with refractory ascites and hernia requiring surgery. However, no comparisons were made between groups in this case series [38]. Of note, in two studies reporting data from 27 patients with TIPS, eight subjects (n = 8) underwent postoperative TIPS creation, immediately after surgery. Therefore, 256 patients underwent preoperative TIPS to achieve portal decompression in anticipation of surgery.

As shown in Table 1, most patients were near or at the age to be classified as “senior adults” (60 years and above) and had cirrhosis of different etiologies, of which alcohol-related cirrhosis was the most frequent.

Additional file 1: Table S2 overviews portal hypertension features (including HVPG) and LREs. Overall, patients had clinical signs of clinically significant portal hypertension by either documented endoscopic proof of esophageal varices or previous episodes of variceal bleeding (see Additional file 1: Table S2 for detailed data). Moreover, 23 studies reported a history of a previous LRE, reflecting a high burden of decompensated cirrhosis in the included studies.

As mentioned above, 256 patients underwent preoperative TIPS, but not all TIPS insertions were performed pre-emptively to surgery. Of these patients, 70% (n = 179) underwent preoperative TIPS placement in a bridge to surgery. In contrast, 77 underwent preoperative TIPS placement as a therapeutic tool for an LRE that was present/in progress when surgery was schedule/planned, most commonly ascites and/or variceal bleeding (Table 1). Information regarding the type of stent used for TIPS creation was available in 12 studies. The use of a non-covered (Wallstent®) and an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stent (Viatorr®) were reported in 6 and 3 studies, respectively. The remaining three studies reported using both types of stents (either Wallstent® or Viatorr® stent). The proportion of patients using one or another stent type was not available.

The conditions requiring surgery and the surgical interventions performed are detailed in Table 1. Also, as shown in Fig. 2, there were abdominal, thoracic, gynecologic, and vascular/endovascular procedures performed with preoperative TIPS. Tumor resection surgery was the most common, followed by non-oncologic gastrointestinal procedures, including hernia repair. In addition, there were cases of aortic aneurysm repair (n = 2), aortic valve replacement (n = 3), and coronary artery bypass (n = 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Types and percentages of surgical interventions performed

Full size image

Risk of bias

The results of the methodological quality assessment of the studies included in this SR are available in the Additional file 1: Figs. S1 and S2.

Overall, the case series and comparative studies were at risk of selection bias due to their retrospective nature and biased evaluation of endpoints. However, most of them presented a clearly stated aim and defined appropriate endpoints to the study’s aims. Regarding the comparative studies included in the MA, the intervention and comparison groups were contemporary, and it was likely that the groups had baseline equivalence.

The more common methodological pitfalls found across studies were the absence of prospectively collected data and the issues associated with study endpoints’ definition and evaluation. Also, in four studies, it was unclear whether the follow-up period was appropriate for the captured and reported outcomes (see Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Outcomes and meta-analysis

Surgery attainment/execution after TIPS was reported in 231 (90%) out of the 256 patients that underwent preoperative TIPS. From the 231 surgical procedures performed with preoperative TIPS, 38 (16%) were classified as emergency surgeries.

Four studies had control group data. However, one study [15] included seven patients that underwent perioperative TIPS in the postoperative period. This study was not considered for MA. In the remaining three comparative studies, patients who underwent preoperative TIPS were compared to controls with cirrhosis who underwent surgery without TIPS. Relevant clinical and outcome data from these articles are available in Table 2.

Table 2 Data from comparative studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Random effects MA showed significantly lower odds of postoperative ascites if preoperative TIPS was created (2 studies: OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.72; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3). We acknowledge that the data combined for the MA of ascites came from studies that used propensity score matching techniques as the method for selecting controls.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for ascites (TIPS vs. non-TIPS)

Full size image

In contrast, random effects MA (Fig. 4) found no significant differences in 90-day mortality (3 studies: OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.33–1.77; I2 = 18.2%) (Fig. 4a), perioperative transfusion requirement (3 studies: OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.28–2.84; I2 = 70.1%) (Fig. 4b), postoperative hepatic encephalopathy (2 studies: OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.35–2.69; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 4c) and postoperative ACLF (3 studies: OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.15–6.8, I2 = 78.9%) (Fig. 4d).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plots for the outcomes of interest: a 90-day mortality; b Perioperative transfusions; c Postoperative hepatic encephalopathy; d Postoperative ACLF

Full size image

Discussion

This meta-analytic review assessed the outcomes of cirrhotic patients that underwent surgery with preoperative TIPS as an adjunct to decompress the portal system. Only studies reporting observational data were found. Three key points can be extracted from our work: first, it is feasible to deploy TIPS as a bridge to surgery as it appears not to jeopardize the attainment/execution of surgical procedures. The data shows that 90% of patients who underwent preoperative TIPS attained/achieved surgery. Second, different types of operations were performed with preoperative TIPS and no differences in LREs were found. Therefore, and acknowledging that available data are limited, it appears that the type of procedure should not be considered a contraindication to offer surgery to cirrhotic patients with PH, even in cases where emergency surgery is needed. And third, the preoperative decompression of the portal circulation through TIPS may have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of postoperative ascites. However, we found no significant effect of preoperative TIPS on other outcomes such as perioperative transfusions, and postsurgical liver events other than ascites, i.e., hepatic encephalopathy, ACLF, and mortality.

The data assembled show that TIPS can be successfully deployed or performed in a variety of surgical procedures and settings across multiple surgical specialties/disciplines. As shown in Fig. 2, abdominal, thoracic, gynecologic, and vascular/endovascular procedures were all performed with preoperative TIPS. Tumor resection surgery was the most common procedure, followed by non-oncologic gastrointestinal procedures such as hernia repair. In addition, there were cases of aortic aneurysm repair, aortic valve replacement, and coronary artery bypass in which TIPS was utilized. While further research is needed to fully understand the effect of TIPS on surgical and postoperative outcomes, surgeons should consider the use of TIPS as a potential tool in the surgical management of cirrhotic patients, including emergency and surgical rescue situations [41]. As such, it should be included in the armamentarium of surgeons practicing in these settings and should also be included in the research agenda of general and emergency surgeons worldwide. It is important to note, however, that the use of TIPS should be restricted to centers with a high volume of cases and a demonstrated expertise in the preoperative deployment of TIPS. Effective communication between the surgeon, interventional radiologist, and hepatologist is also essential for the achievement of optimal outcomes.

We found that preoperative TIPS resulted in lower odds of postoperative ascites after combining data derived from propensity score matching techniques in a random-effects meta-analysis. This is not surprising as TIPS directly acts on the main driver of ascites occurrence by decompressing the hepatic sinusoids and reducing portal pressure. Although no randomized studies have been performed for TIPS in perioperative medicine, preoperative TIPS may protect an already exhausted liver vascular structure unprepared to tolerate the pathophysiological changes that occur as a stress response to surgery [5]. The effects of TIPS could be of greater significance in patients requiring longer or more invasive surgeries as these procedures elicit greater stress responses. However, further prospective (and particularly randomized) studies are required to validate our findings regarding postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing preoperative TIPS. These studies should also evaluate if preoperative TIPS could reduce the hospital cost derived from postoperative ascites care and other liver-related events.

In contrast to the role that preoperative TIPS may have in reducing the odds of postoperative ascites, our analyses found no differences in mortality, perioperative transfusions, hepatic encephalopathy, and ACLF. Since the studies included in our MA are retrospective, there would be an unavoidable selection bias, where both TIPS candidates and those cirrhotic patients that did not underwent to a TIPS creation had a preserved liver function that would impact directly in the risk of developing an LRE during and after the surgery.

In our opinion, future studies should be focused on three priorities: 1. To assess the effectiveness of preoperative TIPS in randomized clinical trials, as mentioned above, and specifically if there are reduced costs resulting from less postoperative ascites, 2. To assess the factors associated with not achieving/attaining surgery after preoperative TIPS and, 3. To identify predictors of postoperative liver decompensation in patients who underwent surgery with preoperative TIPS. Specifically, is there a role for determining hepatic venous pressure gradient in the perioperative care of cirrhotic patients undergoing major surgery, and the predictive performance of noninvasive tests for postoperative outcomes. Moreover, given the well-known advantages of PTFE-covered stent grafts in terms of hepatic encephalopathy and survival [42], future research should also assess whether the prophylactic use of these endoprostheses positively impacts the outcomes of patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery. These data may inform decision-making and clinical guidelines development. Meanwhile, preoperative TIPS should be employed cautiously in well-selected patients and performed by teams with experience in the procedure and demonstrated high-case volume.

Limitations

This report has limitations, and the results should be interpreted in the context of the study design. First, the meta-analysis was based on observational data, thereby making it prone to meta-bias [43] and limiting the applicability of its results. Second, certain relevant data were not systematically reported in most studies and thus, could not be analyzed in our SR + MA, i.e., Child–Pugh and MELD scores of patients before undergoing TIPS, underlying cause of cirrhosis, hepatic venous pressure gradient, or specifics on LRE after surgery. To overcome the heterogeneity in outcome reporting, future surgical research studies evaluating the effect of preoperative TIPS in patients with advanced liver disease should include a core outcome set [44] to help guide the appropriate standardization and reporting of outcomes relevant to health professionals, patients, and health care efficiency.

Third, although a number of articles were reviewed encompassing different study designs, outcomes, and settings, there was a notable lack of solid comparative effectiveness-oriented studies, including randomized controlled clinical trials, of which we could not find any. This might be because preoperative TIPS is still considered an unusual procedure as, unfortunately, no randomized trials have been performed in this setting, thus, diminishing the odds of implementing it into clinical practice.

Despite its limitations, this study synthesized data from the available literature to assemble a range of examples of what happened when TIPS was implemented and used as a preemptive preoperative adjunct in different surgical scenarios. Therefore, the results presented herein should serve as the starting point for more detailed investigations focusing on assessing the effectiveness of preoperative TIPS from randomized studies. Hence, this report should not be used to implement changes in clinical practices. Instead, these results should inform research endeavors on the same matter. Endeavors in which emergency general surgeons [45] could play a fundamental role in advancing the field of endovascular emergency procedures worldwide [46].

Conclusion

Preoperative TIPS appears to be safe in cirrhotic patients with PH who undergo elective and emergency surgery and may have a role in postoperative ascites control. Since available evidence to date is insufficient to provide any recommendation of the TIPS role in this setting, our results underscore the unmet need for prospective randomized studies to elucidate the effect of preoperative TIPS on liver outcomes and mortality after surgery in cirrhotic patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets and Stata commands used during the current study can become available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SR:

Systematic review

MA:

Meta-analysis

PH:

Portal hypertension

HVPG:

Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG),

TIPS:

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

LRE:

Liver-related events

ACLF:

Acute on chronic liver failure

MINORS:

Methodological index for non-randomized studies

References

  1. Garcia-Tsao G, Friedman S, Iredale J, Pinzani M. Now there are many (stages) where before there was one: in search of a pathophysiological classification of cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2010;51:1445–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Iwakiri Y, Trebicka J. Portal hypertension in cirrhosis: pathophysiological mechanisms and therapy. JHEP Rep Innov Hepatol. 2021;3:100316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ripoll C, Groszmann R, Garcia-Tsao G, Grace N, Burroughs A, Planas R, et al. Hepatic venous pressure gradient predicts clinical decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:481–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedman LS. The risk of surgery in patients with liver disease. Hepatology. 1999;29:1617–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. García-Pagán JC, Saffo S, Mandorfer M, Garcia-Tsao G. Where does TIPS fit in the management of patients with cirrhosis? JHEP reports Innov Hepatol. 2020;2:100122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jain D, Mahmood E, V-Bandres M, Feyssa E. Preoperative elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for cirrhotic patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Ann Gastroenterol. 2018;31:330–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lahat E, Lim C, Bhangui P, Fuentes L, Osseis M, Moussallem T, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt as a bridge to non-hepatic surgery in cirrhotic patients with severe portal hypertension: a systematic review. HPB Off J Int Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2018;20:101–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bleszynski MS, Bressan AK, Joos E, Morad Hameed S, Ball CG. Acute care and emergency general surgery in patients with chronic liver disease: how can we optimize perioperative care? A review of the literature. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stroup DFF, Berlin JAA, Morton SCC, Olkin I, Williamson GDD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. NUS. National University of Singapore Libraries—Search template. https://libguides.nus.edu.sg/c.php?g=145717&p=6855609

  12. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Armstrong N, Pozniak M, Helgerson R, Harms B. Computed tomographic angiography with three-dimensional reconstruction in patients with complex diverticular disease and portal hypertension: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:391–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aryan M, McPhail J, Ravi S, Harris P, Allamneni C, Shoreibah M. Perioperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is associated with decreased postoperative complications in decompensated cirrhotics undergoing abdominal surgery. Am Surg. 2022;88:1613–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Azoulay D, Buabse F, Damiano I, Smail A, Ichai P, Dannaoui M, et al. Neoadjuvant transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: a solution for extrahepatic abdominal operation in cirrhotic patients with severe portal hypertension. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;193:46–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Becq A, Ozenne V, Plessier A, Valleur P, Dray X. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt as bridge-to-surgery in refractory gastric antral vascular ectasia. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:5749–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Catalano G, Urbani L, De Simone P, Morelli L, Coletti L, Cioni R, et al. Expanding indications for TIPSS: portal decompression before elective oncologic gastric surgery in cirrhotic patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39:921–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang J, Höfer P, Böhling N, Lingohr P, Manekeller S, Kalff JCC, et al. Preoperative TIPS prevents the development of postoperative acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with high CLIF-C AD score. JHEP Rep. 2022;4:100442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. de Andres Olabarria U, Ugarte Sierra S, Maniega Alba R, Alberdi San Roman I, Ibáñez Aguirre FJJ. Laparoscopic myotomy after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement and embolization of gastroesophageal varices in patients with achalasia and cirrhosis. Cir Esp. 2017;95:296–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fagan SPP, Awad SSS, Berger DHH. Management of complicated umbilical hernias in patients with end-stage liver disease and refractory ascites. Surgery. 2004;135:679–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gil A, Martínez-Regueira F, Hernández-Lizoain JLL, Pardo F, Olea JMM, Bastarrika G, et al. The role of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt prior to abdominal tumoral surgery in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:46–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goel A, Khanna A, Mehrzad H, Bach S, Karkhanis S, Kamran U, et al. Portal decompression with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt prior to nonhepatic surgery: a single-center case series. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;33:e254–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grübel P, Pratt DSS, Elhelw T. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for portal decompression before abdominal and retroperitoneal surgery in patients with severe portal hypertension. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2002;34:489–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guglielmi A, Girlanda R, Lombardo F, de Manzoni G, Frameglia M, Pelosi G, et al. TIPS allowing for an endoscopic mucosal resection of early gastric cancer in a cirrhotic patient with severe hypertensive gastropathy: report of a case. Surg Today. 1999;29:902–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jabbar SAAAA, Jamieson NBB, Morris AJJ, Oien KAA, Duthie F, McKay CJJ, et al. A Glasgow Tipple-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion prior to Whipple resection. J Surg Case Rep. 2016;2016:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kapeleris APP, Venkatachalapathy S. TIPSS as a bridge to extrahepatic abdominal surgery: a case report. Oxford Med Case Rep. 2022;2022:129–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim JJJ, Dasika NLL, Yu E, Fontana RJJ. Cirrhotic patients with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt undergoing major extrahepatic surgery. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43:574–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liverani A, Solinas L, Di Cesare T, Velari L, Neri T, Cilurso F, et al. Preoperative trans-jugular porto-systemic shunt for oncological gastric surgery in a cirrhotic patient. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:997–1000.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Masood I, Saleem A, Malik K, Rashidi L, Kathuria M. TIPS to the rescue: preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement in a patient with caput medusae and colon cancer. Radiol Case Rep. 2020;15:1423–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Minicozzi A, Veraldi GFF, Borzellino G. Minimally invasive treatment of portal hypertension, abdominal aortic aneurysm, and colon cancer: a case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010;20:281–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moulin G, Champsaur P, Bartoli JMM, Chagnaud C, Rousseau H, Monges D. TIPS for portal decompression to allow palliative treatment of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1995;18:186–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Norton SAA, Vickers J, Callaway MPP, Alderson D. The role of preoperative TIPSS to facilitate curative gastric surgery. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003;26:398–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schlenker C, Johnson S, Trotter JFF. Preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for cirrhotic patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1594–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schmitz A, Haste P, Johnson MSS. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation prior to abdominal operation: a retrospective analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24:2228–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Semiz-Oysu A, Moustafa T, Cho KJJ. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt prior to cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Heart Lung Circ. 2007;16:465–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tabchouri N, Barbier L, Menahem B, Perarnau JMM, Muscari F, Fares N, et al. Original study: transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt as a bridge to abdominal surgery in cirrhotic patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:2383–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Telem DAA, Schiano T, Divino CMM. Complicated hernia presentation in patients with advanced cirrhosis and refractory ascites: management and outcome. Surgery. 2010;148:538–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Theruvath TP, Adams DB. Preoperative transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for extrahepatic surgery in cirrhosis. Am Surg. 2010;76:115–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vinet E, Perreault P, Bouchard L, Bernard D, Wassef R, Richard C, et al. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt before abdominal surgery in cirrhotic patients: a retrospective, comparative study. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20:401–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Salamone G, Licari L, Guercio G, Campanella S, Falco N, Scerrino G, et al. The abdominal wall hernia in cirrhotic patients: a historical challenge. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Yang Z, Han G, Wu Q, Ye X, Jin Z, Yin Z, et al. Patency and clinical outcomes of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents versus bare stents: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:1718–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Goodman S, Dickersin K. Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:61–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for development: the COS-STAD recommendations. PLOS Med. 2017;14:e1002447.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Catena F, Biffl W, De Simone B, Sartelli M, Di Saverio S, Kluger Y, et al. Emergency general surgeons: the special forces of general surgery (the “navy seals paradigm”). World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Coccolini F, Kluger Y, Ansaloni L, Moore EE, Coimbra R, Fraga GP, et al. WSES worldwide emergency general surgery formation and evaluation project. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors of this manuscript would like to thank members of the Vall d’Hebron Research Institute and the Vall d’Hebron Liver Unit (Barcelona, Spain), who did not meet the recommended requirements for authorship but provided a valuable contribution to the present work. Per internationally accepted guidelines on authorship and acknowledgment, authorship for the present article was not conferred on those who did not make intellectual contributions to the work, or whose intellectual contributions were limited.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Ramiro Manzano-Nunez

  2. Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain

    Alba Jimenez-Masip

  3. Department of Surgery, Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

    Julian Chica-Yanten

  4. Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco

    Abdelaziz Ibn-Abdelouahab

  5. Department of Surgery, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy

    Massimo Sartelli

  6. Colorectal and Digestive Surgery Unit, Beaujon Hospital, Paris, Île-de-France, France

    Nicola de’Angelis

  7. Ernest E. Moore Shock Trauma Center and University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

    Ernest E. Moore

  8. Department of Surgery, Fundacion Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia

    Alberto F. García

  9. Clinical Research Center, Fundacion Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia

    Alberto F. García

Authors
  1. Ramiro Manzano-Nunez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alba Jimenez-Masip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julian Chica-Yanten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdelaziz Ibn-Abdelouahab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Massimo Sartelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicola de’Angelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ernest E. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alberto F. García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Framing of the research question was contributed by RMN, JCY and AFG. Writing of the SR protocol was contributed by RMN and JCY. Literature review and article selection were contributed by AJM and AbIa. Data collection was contributed by AJM, AbIa, and RMN. Data analysis was contributed by RMN and AFG. Data interpretation was contributed by RMN, NdeA, MS, EM, and AFG. Writing of the manuscript’s first draft was contributed by RMN. Critical revisions were contributed by all authors. Copywriting was contributed by all authors. All authors approved the final version for journal submission. RMN conceived the initial idea and research question in conversations with AFG. RMN supervised the research process from brainstorming to manuscript writing and submission. Only individuals that made a substantial scholarly effort were included as contributors-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramiro Manzano-Nunez.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for a systematic review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for a systematic review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary File.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manzano-Nunez, R., Jimenez-Masip, A., Chica-Yanten, J. et al. Unlocking the potential of TIPS placement as a bridge to elective and emergency surgery in cirrhotic patients: a meta-analysis and future directions for endovascular resuscitation in acute care surgery. World J Emerg Surg 18, 30 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00498-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00498-4

Keywords

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922