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

Abstract

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., 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Precision anatomy for safe approach to pancreatoduodenectomy for both open and minimally invasive procedure: A systematic review

“…The prevalence (or visualized) rate of GCT was reported to be 86.9%-100%, 44,51,59 the mean diameter within 3.3-4.2 mm, 44,51,59 and the mean length 10.7 mm. 59 The various types of anatomical tributaries were 56.1%-93.0% of the gastro-pancreato-colic trunk, 17.8% of the GCT, 7.0%-12.7% of the gastro-pancreatic trunk, and 0.9% of the pancreatocolic trunk. 44,51,59 Miyazawa et al subclassified 93% of the GCT depending on the number of inflowing colon veins into the right gastroepiploic vein and anterior superior pancreatoduodenal vein as: 71% of type I (superior right colic vein [SRCV]), 20% of type II (SRCV + right colic vein [RCV] or middle colic vein [MCV]), and 2% of type III (SRCV + RCV +MCV).…”

Breathing Life into the Cadaver: Introducing Air Dissection As a New Teaching and Dissecting Method for the Venous System

“…). In cases of small anatomical variations of veins that might be overlooked during routine dissection of fresh‐frozen cadavers, air dissection could highlight these as seen in the current study (Hoffman et al, ; Clipet et al, ; Nallikuzhy et al, ; Stefura et al, ).…”

The Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta‐analysis: A framework for critically appraising anatomical meta‐analyses

“…In this article, we introduced the CATAM rubric and used it to critically appraise a recently published anatomical MA (Kacprzyk et al, 2020). There have been other anatomical MAs recently published (Aldabe et al, 2019; Bellier et al, 2020; Berthaume & Bull, 2021; Cheruiyot et al, 2021; Dreher et al, 2018; Graves et al, 2017; Harvie et al, 2019; Koziej et al, 2020; Morelli et al, 2019; Nallikuzhy et al, 2018; Roberts et al, 2021; Sirico et al, 2019; Solewski et al, 2021; Stefura et al, 2018; Tomaszewska et al, 2018; Tomaszewska et al, 2018; Tomaszewski et al, 2017; Tomaszewski et al, 2017; Vikse et al, 2016a, 2016b; Whitley et al, 2020; Yammine, 2013, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d; Yammine et al, 2015; Yurasakpong et al, 2021). We believe that the running paper that we used is an exemplary anatomical MA (Kacprzyk et al, 2020).…”