Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2303021775
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yeh, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yeh, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F. V.
(Radiology 2004;230:645-651.)
© RSNA, 2004


Gastrointestinal Imaging

Biliary Tract Depiction in Living Potential Liver Donors: Comparison of Conventional MR, Mangafodipir Trisodium–enhanced Excretory MR, and Multi–Detector Row CT Cholangiography—Initial Experience1

Benjamin M. Yeh, MD, Richard S. Breiman, MD, Bachir Taouli, MD, Aliya Qayyum, MB, MBS, John P. Roberts, MD and Fergus V. Coakley, MD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (B.M.Y., B.T., R.S.B., A.Q., F.V.C.) and Surgery (J.P.R.), University of California San Francisco, Box 0628, C-324C, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. From the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received December 26, 2002; revision requested March 4, 2003; revision received May 30; accepted July 23. Address correspondence to B.M.Y. (e-mail: benyeh@itsa.ucsf.edu).

PURPOSE: To compare biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors at conventional magnetic resonance (MR), mangafodipir trisodium–enhanced excretory MR, and multi–detector row computed tomographic (CT) cholangiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight living potential liver donors underwent iodipamide meglumine–enhanced CT cholangiography. Eight different potential liver donors then underwent conventional MR cholangiography and mangafodipir trisodium–enhanced excretory MR cholangiography. Two readers independently scored all first-, second-, and third-order biliary branches with a four-point scale from 0 (not seen) to 3 (excellent visualization). Interobserver agreement was calculated by using the weighted {kappa} statistic. Scores were compared between imaging modalities by using generalized estimating equations. Imaging findings of second-order biliary tract anatomy were compared with intraoperative findings for nine patients.

RESULTS: Interobserver agreement for overall biliary tract visualization was good for CT, conventional MR, and excretory MR cholangiography (with weighted {kappa} values of 0.76, 0.66, and 0.79, respectively). The mean second-order biliary branch visualization scores for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were significantly higher at CT cholangiography (2.81 and 2.75) than at conventional MR (1.84 and 1.75, P < .001), excretory MR (2.00 and 2.06, P < .001), and combined conventional and excretory MR cholangiography (2.31 and 2.25, P < .01). At CT, conventional MR, and excretory MR cholangiography, respectively, second-order biliary branching anatomy was discernible in eight, five, and seven patients, with second-order biliary branch variants seen in three, two, and two patients. Surgical findings confirmed the pattern of second-order biliary branching seen at CT in five patients, that seen at conventional MR imaging in one patient, and that seen at excretory MR cholangiography in three patients. At surgery, one case of variant biliary anatomy was found to have been missed at CT cholangiography.

CONCLUSION: In living potential liver donors, CT cholangiography enables significantly better biliary tract visualization than conventional or excretory MR cholangiography either alone or in combination.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Bile ducts, anatomy, 763.13, 764.13, 765.13, 766.13 • Bile ducts, CT, 763.12116, 764.12116, 765.12116, 766.12116 • Bile ducts, MR, 763.12142, 764.12142, 765.12142, 766.12142 • Liver, transplantation, 761.89 • Magnetic resonance (MR), cholangiopancreatography, 763.12142, 764.12142, 765.12142, 766.12142




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. S. Breiman, F. V. Coakley, E. M. Webb, J. J. Ellingson, J. P. Roberts, J. Kohr, J. Lutz, N. Knoess, and B. M. Yeh
CT Cholangiography in Potential Liver Donors: Effect of Premedication with Intravenous Morphine on Biliary Caliber and Visualization
Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 733 - 737.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
O. A. Catalano, A. H. Singh, R. N. Uppot, P. F. Hahn, C. R. Ferrone, and D. V. Sahani
Vascular and Biliary Variants in the Liver: Implications for Liver Surgery
RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 359 - 378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
B. M. Yeh, F. V. Coakley, A. C. Westphalen, B. N. Joe, C. E. Freise, A. Qayyum, R. A. McTaggart, and J. P. Roberts
Predicting Biliary Complications in Right Lobe Liver Transplant Recipients according to Distance between Donor's Bile Duct and Corresponding Hepatic Artery
Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 144 - 151.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. K. An, J. M. Lee, K.-S. Suh, N. J. Lee, S. H. Kim, Y. J. Kim, J. K. Han, and B. I. Choi
Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donors.
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): 1223 - 1233.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
T. Schroeder, A. Radtke, H. Kuehl, J. F. Debatin, M. Malago, and S. G. Ruehm
Evaluation of Living Liver Donors with an All-inclusive 3D Multi-Detector Row CT Protocol
Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 900 - 910.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. M. Merkle, P. A. Haugan, J. Thomas, T. A. Jaffe, and C. Gullotto
3.0- Versus 1.5-T MR Cholangiography: A Pilot Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 516 - 521.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. Kitami, K. Takase, G. Murakami, S. Ko, M. Tsuboi, H. Saito, S. Higano, Y. Nakajima, and S. Takahashi
Types and Frequencies of Biliary Tract Variations Associated with a Major Portal Venous Anomaly: Analysis with Multi-Detector Row CT Cholangiography
Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 156 - 166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
H. J. Kim, A. Y. Kim, S. S. Hong, M.-H. Kim, J. H. Byun, H. J. Won, Y. M. Shin, P. N. Kim, H. K. Ha, and M.-G. Lee
Biliary Ductal Evaluation of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Three-dimensional Direct Multi-Detector Row CT Cholangiographic Findings versus Surgical and Pathologic Results--Feasibility Study
Radiology, December 1, 2005; 238(1): 300 - 308.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. B. Macdonald, M. A. Haider, K. Khalili, T. K. Kim, M. O'Malley, P. D. Greig, D. R. Grant, G. Lockwood, and M. S. Cattral
Relationship Between Vascular and Biliary Anatomy in Living Liver Donors
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 247 - 252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
Z. J. Wang, B. M. Yeh, J. P. Roberts, R. S. Breiman, A. Qayyum, and F. V. Coakley
Living Donor Candidates for Right Hepatic Lobe Transplantation: Evaluation at CT Cholangiography--Initial Experience
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 899 - 904.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. S. Chen, B. M. Yeh, Z. J. Wang, J. P. Roberts, R. S. Breiman, A. Qayyum, and F. V. Coakley
Concordance of Second-Order Portal Venous and Biliary Tract Anatomies on MDCT Angiography and MDCT Cholangiography
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2005; 184(1): 70 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2004 by the Radiological Society of North America.