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


     

Published online before print July 23, 2004, 10.1148/radiol.2323030896
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2323030896v1
232/3/810    most recent
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 Sahani, D. V.
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sahani, D. V.
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, P. R.
(Radiology 2004;232:810-814.)
© RSNA, 2004

Ultrasonography

Intraoperative US in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Liver Neoplasms: Comparison with MR Imaging1

Dushyant V. Sahani, MD, Sanjeeva P. Kalva, MD, Kenneth K. Tanabe, MD, Sikandar M. Hayat, MD, Mary J. O’Neill, MD, Elkan F. Halpern, PhD, Sanjay Saini, MD and Peter R. Mueller, MD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (D.V.S., S.P.K., S.M.H., M.J.O., E.F.H., S.S., P.R.M.) and Surgery (K.K.T.), Massachusetts General Hospital, White 270, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114. From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received June 6, 2003; revision requested July 17; final revision received January 30, 2004; accepted February 17. Address correspondence to D.V.S. (e-mail: dsahani@partners.org).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare intraoperative ultrasonography (US) and preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with contrast material enhancement for the depiction of liver lesions in patients undergoing hepatic resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A radiologist (D.V.S.) and a surgeon (K.K.T.) retrospectively identified 79 patients (36 female and 43 male patients; age range, 10–78 years; mean age, 57 years) who had undergone surgical resection for primary liver tumor or metastasis and had also undergone preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging within 6 weeks before surgery. MR imaging was performed with a 1.5-T system. Dedicated intraoperative US of the liver was performed or supervised by a gastrointestinal radiologist using a 7.5-MHz linear-array transducer, after adequate hepatic mobilization by the surgeon. Histopathologic evaluation of the 159 resected hepatic lesions served as the reference standard. The lesion distribution included colon cancer metastasis (n = 122), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 23), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 6), cavernous hemangioma (n = 4), focal nodular hyperplasia (n = 2), hamartoma (n = 1), and metastatic embryonal sarcoma (n = 1).

RESULTS: Of 159 lesions, 138 (86.7%) were identified at both MR imaging and intraoperative US. Twelve additional lesions (7.5%) in 10 patients were detected only at intraoperative US (eight metastases, one hepatocellular carcinoma, one cholangiocarcinoma, one hemangioma, and one biliary hamartoma). Both modalities failed to depict nine lesions (5.6%) (four metastases, four hepatocellular carcinomas, and one cholangiocarcinoma). The sensitivities of MR imaging and intraoperative US for liver lesion depiction were 86.7% and 94.3%, respectively. Surgical management was altered on the basis of the intraoperative US findings in only three of 10 patients (4%).

CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging is as sensitive as intraoperative US in depicting liver lesions before hepatic resection.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Liver, surgery • Liver neoplasms, 76.314, 76.323, 76.33 • Liver neoplasms, MR, 76.1214, 76.121412, 761.121416, 761.12143 • Liver neoplasms, US, 76.12981 • Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies, 76.121411, 76.121412, 76.12143 • Ultrasound (US), comparative studies, 76.12981 • Ultrasound (US), intraoperative, 76.12982




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
G. Torzilli, A. Palmisano, D. Del Fabbro, M. Marconi, M. Donadon, A. Spinelli, P. P. Bianchi, and M. Montorsi
Contrast-Enhanced Intraoperative Ultrasonography During Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Liver Cirrhosis: Is It Useful or Useless? A Prospective Cohort Study of Our Experience
Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2007; 14(4): 1347 - 1355.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
M. Minagawa, J. Yamamoto, T. Kosuge, Y. Matsuyama, S.-i. Miyagawa, and M. Makuuchi
Simplified Staging System for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Resectable Liver Metastasis: Development and Validation
Arch Surg, March 1, 2007; 142(3): 269 - 276.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
S. Benoist, A. Brouquet, C. Penna, C. Julie, M. El Hajjam, S. Chagnon, E. Mitry, P. Rougier, and B. Nordlinger
Complete Response of Colorectal Liver Metastases After Chemotherapy: Does It Mean Cure?
J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2006; 24(24): 3939 - 3945.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
J. B. Kruskal and R. A. Kane
Intraoperative US of the Liver: Techniques and Clinical Applications.
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 1067 - 1084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]