Normal Anatomic Relationships and Variants

  • Morton A. Meyers

Abstract

A basic knowledge of normal anatomic relationships and variants is essential to understanding the effects of pathologic processes. Fundamental considerations include constant anatomic landmarks, variations in positions of structures, relationships maintained and bounded by peritoneal and fascial attachments, distribution of intra—and extraperitoneal fat providing the contrasting interfaces of organ and viscus contours, and governance of the configuration of the hollow viscera by specific anatomic characteristics and general physical laws.

Keywords

Adrenal Gland Common Bile Duct Inferior Vena Cava Plain Film Caudate Lobe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meyers MA, Oliphant M: Pitfalls and Pickups in Plain-Film Diagnosis of the Abdomen. Current Problems in Radiology. Year Book Medical, Chicago, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 1–37, March—April 1974Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shin MS, Berland LL: Computed tomography of retrocrural spaces: Normal, anatomic variants, and pathologic conditions. AJR 145: 81–86, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldsmith NA, Woodburne RT: The surgical anatomy pertaining to liver resection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 105: 310–318, 1957PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Healey JE Jr, Schroy PC: Anatomy of the biliary duct within the human liver: Analysis of the prevailing pattern of branchings and the major variations of the biliary ducts. Arch Surg 66: 599–616, 1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michels NA: Newer anatomy of the liver and its variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J Surg 112: 337–347, 1966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pagani JJ: Intrahepatic vascular territories shown by computed tomography. The value of CT in determining resectability of hepatic tumors. Radiology 147: 173–178, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sexton CS, Zeman RK: Correlation of computed tomography, sonography, and gross anatomy of the liver. AJR 141: 711–718, 1983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haswell DM, Berne AS, Schneider B: Plain film recognition of the ligamentum teres hepatis. Radiology 114: 263–267, 1975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfand DW: Anatomy of the liver, Rad Cl N Am 18: 187–194, 1980Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whalen JP, Berne AS, Riemenschneider PA: The extraperitoneal perivisceral fat pad. I. Its role in the roentgenologic visualization of abdominal organs. Radiology 92: 466–472, 1969PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstein JB, Heiken JP, Lee JKT, et al: High resolution CT of the porta hepatis and hepatoduodenal ligament. Radiographics 6(1): 55–73, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Govoni AF, Meyers MA: Pseudopneumobilia. Radiology 118: 526, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyers MA: Roentgen significance of the phrenicocolic ligament. Radiology 95: 539–545, 1970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyers MA: Peritoneography: Normal and pathologic anatomy. Am J Roentgenol Rad Ther Nucl Med 117: 353–365, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curtis GM, Moritz D: The surgical significance of the accessory spleen. Ann Surg 123: 276–298, 1946PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beahrs JR, Stephens DH: Enlarged accessory spleens: CT appearance in postsplenectomy patients. AJR 135: 483–486, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atkinson GO, Clements JL Jr, Milledge RD, et al: Pancreatic disease simulating urinary tract disease. Clin Radiol 24: 185–191, 1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marshall S, Lapp M, Schutte JW: Lesions of the pancreas mimicking renal disease. J Urol 93: 4145, 1965Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kreel L, Sandin B, Slavin G: Pancreatic morphology: A combined radiological and pathological study. Clin Radiol 24: 154–161, 1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varley PF, Rohrmann CA Jr, Silvis SE, et al: The normal endoscopic pancreatogram. Radiology 118: 295–300, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kivisaari L, Makela P, Aarimaa M: Technical note/pancreatic mobility: An important factor in pancreatic computed tomography. J Computer Assist Tomogr 6(4): 854–856, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farman J, Dallemand S, Schneider M, et al: Pancreatic pseudocysts involving the spleen. Gastrointest Radiol 1: 339–343, 1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyers MA: Diseases of the Adrenal Glands: Radiologic Diagnosis. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 1963Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meyers MA, Friedenberg R, King M, et al: Significance of the renal capsular arteries. Br J Radiol 40: 949–956, 1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kenney PJ, Robbins GL, Ellis DA, et al: Adrenal glands in patients with congenital renal anomalies: CT appearance. Radiology 155: 181–182, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyers MA: Characteristic radiographic shapes of pheochromocytomas and adrenocortical adenomas. Radiology 87: 889–891, 1966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyers MA: Acute extraperitoneal infection. Semin Roentgenol 8: 445–464, 1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyers MA, Whalen JP, Peele K, et al: Radiologic features of extraperitoneal effusions: An anatomic approach. Radiology 104: 249–257, 1972PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morton A. Meyers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations