Difference between type 2 gastroesophageal varices and isolated fundic varices in clinical profiles and portosystemic collaterals

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5620

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 10, Issue 17

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (4436)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

222

WORD

HTML

1881

Figures (1-3)

744

Tables (1-4)

380

Sum=3308

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

266

Download

862

Sum=1128

Jun 16, 2022 (publication date) through Dec 16, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (2)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Clinical Cases

ISSN

2307-8960

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Clin Cases. Jun 16, 2022; 10(17): 5620-5633
Published online Jun 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5620

Table 3 The correlations between afferent/efferent veins and portosystemic collaterals in patients with gastroesophageal varices

Variables		The volume of varices (mL)		The diameter of main portal vein (mm)	Afferent veins			Efferent veins		Other portosystemic collateral vessels
Variables		The volume of EVs (mL)	The volume of GVs (mL)	The diameter of main portal vein (mm)	Maximum diameter of LGV (mm)	Maximum diameter of PGV (mm)	Maximum diameter of SGV (mm)	Maximum diameter of SRS (mm)	Maximum diameter of GRS (mm)	Intrahepatic portosystemic shunts	Paraumbilical vein patency	Retroperitoneal shunt
Maximum diameter of LGV (mm)	Correlation coefficient	0.411	0.372	0.052	/	0.099	0.307	-0.374	-0.018	0.061	0.081	-0.039
	P value	0.000	0.000	0.632	/	0.654	0.061	0.258	0.940	0.556	0.437	0.711
	n	92	90	88	/	23	38	11	20	95	95	95
Short gastric vein	Correlation coefficient	0.139	0.066	0.013	0.132	-0.038	/	-0.179	0.268	0.046	0.022	0.065
	P value	0.182	0.532	0.903	0.204	0.859	/	0.598	0.241	0.655	0.831	0.524
	n	94	92	90	95	24	38	11	21	97	97	97
Posterior gastric vein	Correlation coefficient	-0.055	0.378	-0.239	0.199	/	0.100	0.298	0.520	0.121	-0.106	0.091
	P value	0.600	0.000	0.023	0.053	/	0.550	0.373	0.016	0.236	0.302	0.377
	n	94	92	90	95	24	38	11	21	97	97	97
Maximum diameter of splenorenal shunt (mm)	Correlation coefficient	0.200	-0.155	-0.533	-0.374	1.000	0.000	/	/	/	-0.418	0.000
	P value	0.580	0.650	0.139	0.258	/	1.000	/	/	/	0.200	1.000
	n	10	11	9	11	2	7	/	1	11	11	11
Maximum diameter of gastrorenal shunt (mm)	Correlation coefficient	-0.518	0.755	-0.434	-0.018	0.745	0.576	/	/	0.332	-0.113	-0.238
	P value	0.023	0.000	0.072	0.940	0.013	0.082	/	/	0.141	0.625	0.298
	n	19	20	18	20	10	10	1	/	21	21	21

The correlations of categorical or continuous variables were analyzed by Spearman correlation test. In determining the maximum diameter of a vessel, isolated saccular dilatation of a vessel in venous ectasia or venous aneurysm was excluded. EVs: Esophageal varices; GVs: Gastric varices; LGV: Left gastric vein; PGV: Posterior gastric vein; SGV: Short gastric vein; SRS: Splenorenal shunt; GRS: Gastrorenal shunt.

Citation: Song YH, Xiang HY, Si KK, Wang ZH, Zhang Y, Liu C, Xu KS, Li X. Difference between type 2 gastroesophageal varices and isolated fundic varices in clinical profiles and portosystemic collaterals. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(17): 5620-5633
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i17/5620.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5620