Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1822–1830 | Cite as

Coronal 2D MR cholangiography overestimates the length of the right hepatic duct in liver transplantation donors

  • Bohyun Kim
  • Kyoung Won Kim
  • So Yeon Kim
  • So Hyun Park
  • Jeongjin Lee
  • Gi Won Song
  • Dong-Hwan Jung
  • Tae-Yong Ha
  • Sung Gyu Lee
Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the length of the right hepatic duct (RHD) measured on rotatory coronal 2D MR cholangiography (MRC), rotatory axial 2D MRC, and reconstructed 3D MRC.

Materials and methods

Sixty-seven donors underwent coronal and axial 2D projection MRC and 3D MRC. RHD length was measured and categorized as ultrashort (≤1 mm), short (>1-14 mm), and long (>14 mm). The measured length, frequency of overestimation, and the degree of underestimation between two 2D MRC sets were compared to 3D MRC.

Results

The length of the RHD from 3D MRC, coronal 2D MRC, and axial 2D MRC showed significant difference (p < 0.05). RHD was frequently overestimated on the coronal than on axial 2D MRC (61.2 % vs. 9 %; p < .0001). On coronal 2D MRC, four (6 %) with short RHD and one (1.5 %) with ultrashort RHD were over-categorized as long RHD. On axial 2D MRC, overestimation was mostly <1 mm (83.3 %), none exceeding 3 mm or over-categorized. The degree of underestimation between the two projection planes was comparable.

Conclusion

Coronal 2D MRC overestimates the RHD in liver donors. We suggest adding axial 2D MRC to conventional coronal 2D MRC in the preoperative workup protocol for living liver donors to avoid unexpected confrontation with multiple ductal openings when harvesting the graft.

Key Points

In living liver donors, RHD length influences the number of ductal openings.

Coronal 2D MRC overestimates the RHD length than does axial 2D MRC.

Adding axial 2D MRC to coronal 2D MRC may prevent overestimating RHD length.

Keywords

Cholangiopancreatography Magnetic resonance Liver transplantation Living donors Bile ducts, Intrahepatic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Kyoung Won Kim. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding from the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (grant 2010-0021107). One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, cross sectional study, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Tso WK, Wong J (2002) Biliary reconstruction and complications of right lobe live donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 236:676–683CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kasahara M, Egawa H, Takada Y et al (2006) Biliary reconstruction in right lobe living-donor liver transplantation: comparison of different techniques in 321 recipients. Ann Surg 243:559–566CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim RD, Sakamoto S, Haider MA et al (2005) Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in assessing biliary anatomy in right lobe living donors. Transplantation 79:1417–1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kashyap R, Bozorgzadeh A, Abt P et al (2008) Stratifying risk of biliary complications in adult living donor liver transplantation by magnetic resonance cholangiography. Transplantation 85:1569–1572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ishiko T, Egawa H, Kasahara M et al (2002) Duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction in living donor liver transplantation utilizing right lobe graft. Ann Surg 236:235–240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jeon YM, Lee KW, Yi NJ et al (2013) The right posterior bile duct anatomy of the donor is important in biliary complications of the recipients after living-donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 257:702–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ragab A, Lopez-Soler RI, Oto A, Testa G (2013) Correlation between 3D-MRCP and intra-operative findings in right liver donors. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2:7–13PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, Busuttil RW, Lu DS (2004) The utility of MRCP in preoperative mapping of biliary anatomy in adult-to-adult living related liver transplant donors. J Magn Reson Imaging 19:209–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sirvanci M, Duran C, Ozturk E et al (2007) The value of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the preoperative assessment of living liver donors. Clin Imaging 31:401–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Song GW, Lee SG, Hwang S et al (2007) Preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy of donor in living donor liver transplantation by conventional nonenhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Transpl Int 20:167–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsu HW, Tsang LL, Yap A et al (2011) Magnetic resonance cholangiography in living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 92:94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu YB, Bai YL, Min ZG, Qin SY (2013) Magnetic resonance cholangiography in assessing biliary anatomy in living donors: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 19:8427–8434CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basaran C, Agildere AM, Donmez FY et al (2008) MR cholangiopancreatography with T2-weighted prospective acquisition correction turbo spin-echo sequence of the biliary anatomy of potential living liver transplant donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1527–1533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee Y, Kim SY, Kim KW et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA for preoperative biliary mapping: correlation with intraoperative cholangiography. Acta Radiol 56:773–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogul H, Kantarci M, Pirimoglu B et al (2014) The efficiency of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography in living donor liver transplantation: a preliminary study. Clin Transplant 28:354–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald S et al (2014) Bile duct evaluation of potential living liver donors with Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR cholangiography: Single-dose, double dose or half-dose contrast enhanced imaging. Eur J Radiol 83:763–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim JS, Kim MJ, Myoung S et al (2008) MR cholangiography for evaluation of hilar branching anatomy in transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:537–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zho S-Y, Park J, Choi J-Y, Kim D-H (2010) Respiratory motion compensated MR cholangiopancreatography at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:726–732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glockner JF, Saranathan M, Bayram E, Lee CU (2013) Breath-held MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using a 3D Dixon fat-water separated balanced steady state free precession sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 31:1263–1270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scarfe WC, Farman AG (2008) What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin N Am 52:707–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garcia JA (2013) Three-Dimensional Imaging for Coronary Interventions: Techniques and technologies for more accurate vessel views. Cardiac Interventions Today January/FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stelter L, Freyhardt P, Grieser C et al (2014) An increased flip angle in late phase Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI shows improved performance in bile duct visualization compared to T2w-MRCP. Eur J Radiol 83:1723–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald S et al (2014) Comparison of different magnetic resonance cholangiography techniques in living liver donors including Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced T1-weighted sequences. PLoS One 9:e113882CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neri E, Bali MA, Ba-Ssalamah A et al (2016) ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. Eur Radiol 26:921–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bohyun Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kyoung Won Kim
    • 1
  • So Yeon Kim
    • 1
  • So Hyun Park
    • 1
  • Jeongjin Lee
    • 3
  • Gi Won Song
    • 4
  • Dong-Hwan Jung
    • 4
  • Tae-Yong Ha
    • 4
  • Sung Gyu Lee
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Ajou University Medical CenterAjou University School of MedicineSuwonSouth Korea
  3. 3.School of Computer Science & EngineeringSoongsil UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Surgery, Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations