Advertisement
Surgery
Advanced searchSave search
Original communication| Volume 77, ISSUE 1, P144-149, January 1975

Liver regeneration after portacaval transportation in rats

DOI:https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:0039606075900203
Liver regeneration after portacaval transportation in rats
Previous ArticleAccidents and complications in selective and proximal gastric vagotomy
Next ArticleFemorofemoral grafts for unilateral occlusion of aortic bifurcation grafts
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      General recognition of the presence of a specific hepatotrophic factor in portal blood that is necessary for liver regeneration was delayed by two major problems. First, there was a long period of confusion regarding liver atrophy, liver hypertrophy, and cellular hyperplasia. Second, because only exposure to other liver tissue destroys the hepatotrophic activity, all of the studies that were based on bypassing the portal blood into the systemic circulation merely diluted the active substance, which still was available to the hepatocytes by recirculation through the hepatic artery. These problems have been resolved by the development of more sophisticated methods by which to assay liver regeneration and by the introduction of the double liver model to study regeneration. During the time when liver weight alone was used to assess regeneration, the regenerative capacity of the liver was reported to be much greater after portacaval transposition than after end-to-side portacaval shunt, a finding that is inconsistent with current knowledge of the hepatotrophic portal blood factor. To re-evaluate the effect on liver regeneration of providing a compensatory systemic venous inflow after complete portal diversion, 40 partially hepatectomized inbred rats which had previously undergone either a sham operation and end-to-side portacaval shunt or a portacaval transposition were compared on the basis of six separate criteria of regeneration. Alf of the livers actively regenerated and no significant advantage of providing a substitute systemic venous inflow to the liver could be detected by any of the criteria.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bucher N.L.R.
        Regeneration of mammalian liver.
        Int. Rev. Cytol. 1963; 15: 245
        • Chandler J.G.
        • Lee S.
        • Krubel R.
        • et al.
        The inter-liver competition and portal blood in regeneration of auxiliary liver transplants.
        in: ed. 2. Surg. Forum. 22. 1971: 341
        • Child III, C.G.
        • Barr D.
        • Holswade G.R.
        • et al.
        Liver regeneration following portacaval transposition in dogs.
        Ann. Surg. 1953; 138: 600
        • Fisher B.
        Portal blood factor as the humoral agent in liver regeneration.
        Science. 1971; 171: 575
        • Fisher B.
        • Szuch P.
        • Fisher E.R.
        Evaluation of a humoral factor in liver regeneration utilizing liver transplants.
        Cancer Res. 1971; 31: 322
        • Halgrimson C.G.
        • Marchioro T.L.
        • Faris T.D.
        • et al.
        Auxiliary liver transplantation: Effect of host portacaval shunt.
        Arch. Surg. 1966; 93: 107
        • Higgins G.M.
        • Anderson R.M.
        Experimental pathology of the liver: Restoration of the liver of the white rat following partial surgical removal.
        Arch. Pathol. 1931; 12: 186
        • Lecompte Y.
        • Franco D.
        • Bismuth H.
        Portacaval transposition in the rat.
        Biomedicine. 1973; 19: 318
        • Lee S.
        • Edgington T.S.
        • Orloff M.J.
        The role of afferent blood supply in regeneration of liver isografts in rats.
        in: ed. 2. Surg. Forum. 19. 1968: 360
        • Lee S.
        • Keiter J.E.
        • Rosen H.
        • et al.
        Influence of blood supply on regeneration of liver transplants.
        in: ed. 2. Surg. Forum. 20. 1968: 369

      11. Lee, S., Chandler, J. G., Broelsch, C. E., et al.: Portal-systemic anastomosis in the rat, J. Surg. Res. In press.

        • Marchioro T.L.
        • Porter K.A.
        • Brown B.L.
        • et al.
        The effect of partial portacaval transposition on the canine liver.
        Surgery. 1967; 61: 723
        • Marmur J.
        A procedure for the isolation of deoxyribonucleic acid from microorganisms.
        J. Mol. Biol. 1961; 3: 208
        • Silen W.
        • Mawdsley D.L.
        • Weirich W.L.
        • et al.
        Studies of hepatic function in dogs with Eck fistula or portacaval transposition.
        Arch. Surg. 1957; 74: 964
        • Starzl T.E.
        • Francavilla A.
        • Halgrimson C.G.
        • et al.
        The origin, hormonal nature, and action of hepatotrophic substances in portal venous blood.
        Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1973; 137: 179
        • Thomford N.R.
        • Shorter R.G.
        • Hallenbeck G.A.
        Homotransplantation of the canine liver; survival and histology with and without azathioprine.
        Arch. Surg. 1965; 90: 527
        • Tretbar L.L.
        • Beven E.G.
        • Hermann R.E.
        The effects of portacaval shunt and portal flow occlusion on canine auxiliary liver homotransplants.
        Surgery. 1967; 61: 733
        • Weinbren K.
        The portal blood supply and regeneration of the rat liver.
        Br. J. Exp. Pathol. 1955; 36: 583

      Article info

      Publication history

      Accepted: August 23, 1974

      Footnotes

      ☆Supported in part by United States Public Health Service Grant AM 12281.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/uri:pii:0039606075900203

      Copyright

      © 1975 Published by Elsevier Inc.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX