Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 15, 2026

New Thrombectomy Technique for Total Portal Vein Thrombosis in Liver Transplantation
Published on: June 27, 2025
64-row multidetector computed tomography portal venography of gastric variceal collateral circulation
1Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Aim:
To study characteristics of collateral circulation of gastric varices (GVs) with 64-row multidetector computer tomography portal venography (MDCTPV).
Methods:
64-row MDCTPV with a slice thickness of 0.625 mm and a scanning field from 2 cm above the tracheal bifurcation to the lower edge of the kidney was performed in 86 patients with GVS diagnosed by endoscopy. The computed tomography protocol included unenhanced, arterial and portal vein phases. The MDCTPV was performed on an AW4.3 workstation. GVs were classified into three types according to Sarin's Classification. The afferent and efferent veins of each type of GV were observed.
Results:
The afferent venous drainage originated mostly from the left gastric vein alone (LGV) (28/86, 32.59%), or the LGV more than the posterior gastric vein/short gastric vein [LGV > posterior gastric vein/short gastric vein (PGV/SGV)] (22/86, 25.58%), as seen by MDCTPV. The most common efferent venous drainage was via the azygos vein to the superior vena cava (53/86, 61.63%), or via the gastric/splenorenal shunt (37/86, 43.02%) or inferior phrenic vein (8/86, 9.30%) to the inferior vena cava. In patients with gastroesophageal varices type 1, the afferent venous drainage of GV mainly originated from the LGV or LGV > PGV/SGV (43/48, 89.58%), and the efferent venous drainage was mainly via the azygos vein to the super vena cava (43/48, 89.58%), as well as via the gastric/splenorenal shunt (8/48, 16.67%) or inferior phrenic vein (3/48, 6.25%) to the inferior vena cava. In patients with gastroesophageal varices type 2, the afferent venous drainage of the GV mostly came from the PGV/SGV more than the LGV (PGV/SGV > LGV) (8/16, 50%), and the efferent venous drainage was via the azygos vein (10/16, 62.50%) and gastric/splenorenal shunt (9/16, 56.25%). In patients with isolated gastric varices, the main afferent venous drainage was via the PGV/SGV alone (16/22, 72.73%), and the efferent venous drainage was mainly via the gastric/splenorenal shunt (20/22, 90.91%), as well as the inferior phrenic vein (3/23) to the inferior vena cava.
Conclusion:
MDCTPV can clearly display the afferent and efferent veins of all types of GV, and it could provide useful reference information for the clinical management of GV bleeding.
Related Concept Videos
Portal Hypertension
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol abuse, or...
Imaging Studies III: Gastrointestinal Motility Studies and Virtual Colonoscopy
Radionuclide Testing
Radionuclide testing is a sophisticated medical technique for assessing gastrointestinal motility. It focuses on gastric emptying and colonic transit time. Radioactive markers track the movement of food through the digestive system, providing insights into gastrointestinal disorders.
In gastric emptying studies, a meal's liquid and solid...
Esophageal Varices-I: Introduction
Hepatic Portal System
At its core, the hepatic portal vein is the result of a confluence of the superior and inferior mesenteric veins along with the splenic vein. Each of these veins has a unique role. The superior mesenteric vein is responsible...
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies

