Biliary Tract Depiction in Living Potential Liver Donors: Comparison of Conventional MR, Mangafodipir Trisodium-enhanced Excretory MR, and Multi-Ditector Row CT Cholangiography - Initial Experience

Benjamin M. Yeh, Richard S. Breiman, Bachir Taouli, Aliya Qayyum, John P. Roberts, Fergus Coakley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

98 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 K 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 K 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)645-651
Number of pages7
JournalRadiology
Volume230
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cholangiography
Biliary Tract
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Tissue Donors
Liver
Anatomy
N,N'-bis(pyridoxal-5-phosphate)ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid

Keywords

  • Anatomy
  • Bile ducts
  • Cholangiopancreatography
  • CT
  • Liver
  • Magnetic resonance (MR)
  • MR
  • Transplantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Biliary Tract Depiction in Living Potential Liver Donors : Comparison of Conventional MR, Mangafodipir Trisodium-enhanced Excretory MR, and Multi-Ditector Row CT Cholangiography - Initial Experience. / Yeh, Benjamin M.; Breiman, Richard S.; Taouli, Bachir; Qayyum, Aliya; Roberts, John P.; Coakley, Fergus.

In: Radiology, Vol. 230, No. 3, 03.2004, p. 645-651.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d61c6b66909a4cce8b3d63b9d6dc9245,
title = "Biliary Tract Depiction in Living Potential Liver Donors: Comparison of Conventional MR, Mangafodipir Trisodium-enhanced Excretory MR, and Multi-Ditector Row CT Cholangiography - Initial Experience",
abstract = "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 K 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 K 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.",
keywords = "Anatomy, Bile ducts, Cholangiopancreatography, CT, Liver, Magnetic resonance (MR), MR, Transplantation",
author = "Yeh, {Benjamin M.} and Breiman, {Richard S.} and Bachir Taouli and Aliya Qayyum and Roberts, {John P.} and Fergus Coakley",
year = "2004",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2303021775",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "230",
pages = "645--651",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biliary Tract Depiction in Living Potential Liver Donors

T2 - Comparison of Conventional MR, Mangafodipir Trisodium-enhanced Excretory MR, and Multi-Ditector Row CT Cholangiography - Initial Experience

AU - Yeh, Benjamin M.

AU - Breiman, Richard S.

AU - Taouli, Bachir

AU - Qayyum, Aliya

AU - Roberts, John P.

AU - Coakley, Fergus

PY - 2004/3

Y1 - 2004/3

N2 - 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 K 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 K 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.

AB - 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 K 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 K 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.

KW - Anatomy

KW - Bile ducts

KW - Cholangiopancreatography

KW - CT

KW - Liver

KW - Magnetic resonance (MR)

KW - MR

KW - Transplantation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1342287557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1342287557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2303021775

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2303021775

M3 - Article

C2 - 14990830

AN - SCOPUS:1342287557

VL - 230

SP - 645

EP - 651

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -