Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 886–893 | Cite as

Evaluation of biliary anatomy in the caudate lobe using drip infusion cholangiography-computed tomography

  • Hiromi EdoEmail author
  • Ryuzo Sekiguchi
  • Naoki Edo
  • Akiko Kajiyama
  • Masashi Nagamoto
  • Tatsuya Gomi



This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the caudate branches (CBs), which are bile ducts originating from the caudate lobe (CL), using drip infusion cholangiography with computed tomography (DIC-CT).


The confluence patterns of CBs were evaluated in 185 adult patients undergoing DIC-CT. The following bile duct features were evaluated: (a) number of depicted CBs; (b) identification of the caudate portion from which the CBs were derived; (c) identification of the confluence site of a CB; and (d) whether there was a difference in the confluence site of the CBs depending on the position of the right posterior hepatic duct (RPHD) and the portal vein (PV).


DIC-CT enabled detection of a total of 640 bile ducts from the CL in 185 patients, and the total number of CBs from the Spiegel lobe (SP), the paracaval portion, and the caudate process (CP) were 347 (54.2%), 112 (17.5%), and 181 (28.2%), respectively. In the SP, over 60% of CBs joined the left hepatic duct system (LHDS). The positional relationship between the RPHD and the PV was divided into a supra-portal course (n = 168) and an infra-portal course (n = 17). The number of CBs joining the LHDS was significantly different between a supra-portal course and an infra-portal course (p = 0.0484).


CBs were depicted by DIC-CT in 98.9% of the subjects, and a detailed evaluation was possible. The number of CBs joining the LHDS was associated with the position of the RPHD and the PV.


DIC-CT Bile ducts Liver Caudate lobe 



We would like to thank Editage ( for English language editing.



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Yamamoto T, Kubo S, Shuto T, Ichikawa T, Ogawa M, Hai S, Sakabe K, Tanaka S, Uenishi T, Ikebe T, Tanaka H, Kaneda K, Hirohashi K (2004) Surgical strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma originating in the caudate lobe. Surgery 135:595–603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaib E, Ribeiro MAF Jr., Silva Fde S, Saad WA, Cecconello I (2007) Surgical approach for hepatic caudate lobectomy: Review of 401 cases. J Am Coll Surg 204:118–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wen ZQ, Yan YQ, Yang JM, Wu MC (2008) Precautions in caudate lobe resection: report of 11 cases. World J Gastroenterol 14:2767–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jin Y, Wang L, Yu YQ, Zhou DE, Liu DR, Yang JJ, Peng SY, Li JT (2017) Anatomic isolated caudate lobectomy: Is it possible to establish a standard surgical flow? World J Gastroenterol 23:7433–7439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hyodo T, Kumano S, Kushihata F, Okada M, Hirata M, Tsuda T, Takada Y, Mochizuki T, Murakami T (2012) CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree. Br J Radiol 85:887–896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kitami M, Takase K, Murakami G, Ko S, Tsuboi M, Saito H, Higano S, Nakajima Y, Takahashi S (2006) Types and frequencies of biliary tract variations associated with a major portal venous anomaly: analysis with multi-detector row CT cholangiography. Radiology 238:156–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumon M (2017) Anatomical study of the caudate lobe with special reference to portal venous and biliary branches using corrosion liver casts and clinical application. Liver Cancer 6:161–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takamatsu S, Goseki N, Nakajima K, Teramoto K, Iwai T, Arii S (2004) Distributing pattern of the bile duct of the caudate lobe on computed tomography with drip infusion cholangiography and its surgical significance. Hepatogastroenterology 51:29–32Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitami M, Murakami G, Ko S, Takase K, Tuboi M, Saito H, Nakajima Y, Takahashi S (2004) Spiegel’s lobe bile ducts often drain into the right hepatic duct or its branches: study using drip-infusion cholangiography-computed tomography in 179 consecutive patients. World J Surg 28:1001–1006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumon M (1985) [Anatomy of the caudate lobe with special reference to portal vein and bile duct]. Acta Hepatol Jpn 26:1193–1199 (in Japanese with English summary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yeh BM, Breiman RS, Taouli B, Qayyum A, Roberts JP, Coakley FV (2004) Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: comparison of conventional MR, mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced excretory MR, and multi-detector row CT cholangiography–initial experience. Radiology 230:645–651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen JS, Yeh BM, Wang ZJ, Roberts JP, Breiman RS, Qayyum A, Coakley FV (2005) Concordance of second-order portal venous and biliary tract anatomies on MDCT angiography and MDCT cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:70–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ogawa M, Ozawa Y, Ohta K, Sekiguchi T, Omata S, Urano M, Matsuo Y, Shibamoto Y (2017) Usefulness of 3D balanced turbo-field-echo MR sequence evaluating the branching pattern of the intrahepatic bile ducts: comparison with drip infusion CT cholangiography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:1888–1895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saad WE, Ginat D (2008) Computed tomography and magnetic resonance cholangiography. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 11:74–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirao K, Miyazaki A, Fujimoto T, Isomoto I, Hayashi K (2000) Evaluation of aberrant bile ducts before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: helical CT cholangiography versus MR cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:713–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ishii H, Noguchi A, Fukami T, Sugimoto R, Tada H, Takeshita H, Umehara S, Izumi H, Tani N, Yamaguchi M, Yamane T (2017) Preoperative evaluation of accessory hepatic ducts by drip infusion cholangiography with CT. BMC Surg 17:52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nilsson U (1987) Adverse reactions to iotroxate at intravenous cholangiography. A prospective clinical investigation and review of the literature. Acta Radiol 28:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Persson A, Dahlstrom N, Smedby O, Brismar TB (2006) Three-dimensional drip infusion CT cholangiography in patients with suspected obstructive biliary disease: a retrospective analysis of feasibility and adverse reaction to contrast material. BMC Med Imaging 6:1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fulcher AS (2004) CT cholangiography: advantages and disadvantages compared with MR cholangiography in the evaluation of the biliary tract following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 10:1071–1072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shinohara Y (1995) [Demonstration of caudate lobe bile ducts using 3D-CT cholangiography]. Nihon Geka Gakkai zasshi 96:88–96 (in Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taenzer V, Volkhardt V (1979) Double blind comparison of meglumine iotroxate (Biliscopin), meglumine iodoxamate (Endobil), and meglumine ioglycamate (Biligram). AJR Am J Roentgenol 132:55–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edo H, Sekiguchi R, Kajiyama A, Iwasaki M, Hasegawa M, Tsunoo M, Nagamoto M, Gomi T (2017) Variations of Biliary Anatomy from the caudate Lobe by CT Cholangiography – How far can we evaluate? ECR2017-EPOS.
  23. 23.
    Edo H, Sekiguchi R, Kajiyama A, Murata N, Nagamoto M, Gomi T (2018) Confluence patterns of bile ducts from the caudate lobe and variations in the right and left hepatic ducts: an analysis using multi-detector row computed tomography cholangiography. ECR2018-EPOS.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyToho University Ohashi Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineTeikyo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations