SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography evaluation of intrahepatic bile duct variations with updated classification

ALAADDİN NAYMAN
Orhan ÖZBEK
Seyit EROL
Hayrettin KARAKUŞ
Hasan Emin KAYA
Pages
489–494
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Novel variations described in this study may help to better understand the biliary anatom

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE Preoperative detection of intrahepatic bile duct (IHBD) variations is essential to reduce surgical mor-bidity and mortality rates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, newly detected variations that were not included in this classification were identified and classified.RESULTSMRCP examinations of 2624 patients were screened, and 2143 were determined to be eligible for evaluation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Novel variations described in this study may help to better understand the biliary anatom
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE Preoperative detection of intrahepatic bile duct (IHBD) variations is essential to reduce surgical mor-bidity and mortality rates. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a noninvasive and reliable method for demonstrating the normal IHBD anatomy and its variations. This retrospec-tive study aimed to identify and classify novel variations, except those already reported in the liter-ature, using MRCP.METHODSMRCP examinations, which were conducted in two different centers in the last five years, were ret-rospectively evaluated. IHBD variations were recorded with respect to the Yoshida classification. In addition, newly detected variations that were not included in this classification were identified and classified.RESULTSMRCP examinations of 2624 patients were screened, and 2143 were determined to be eligible for evaluation. Of 2143 patients, 987 were males (average age, 54±18 years) and 1156 were females (mean age, 57±17 years). In this study, 10 novel variations that were not included in the Yoshida classification were identified in 14 patients.CONCLUSIONMRCP is an effective, reliable, and noninvasive imaging method for evaluating the IHBD anatomy and its variations. Novel variations described in this study may help to better understand the biliary anatom

🔖

Cite This Article

NAYMAN, A., ÖZBEK, O., EROL, S., KARAKUŞ, H., KAYA, H. E. (2016). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography evaluation of intrahepatic bile duct variations with updated classification. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6, 489–494. https://ajindex.com/articles/350065

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Lyu S-Y, Pan K-T, Chu S-Y, et al. Common and rare variants of the biliary tree: magnetic res- onance cholangiographic findings and clinical implications. J Radiol 2012; 37:59-67.
  2. Hyodo T, Kumano S, Kushihata F, et al. CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree. Br J Radiol 2012; 85:887-896. [CrossRef] Lindsell DR. The diagnostic accuracy of mag- netic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledo- cholithiasis. Clin Radiol 2000; 55:579. [CrossRef] Angulo P, Pearce DH, Johnson CD, et al. Mag- netic resonance cholangiography in patients with biliary disease: its role in primary scleros- ing cholangitis. J Hepatol 2000; 33:520-527. [CrossRef] Sirinek KR, Schwesinger WH. Has intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic chole- cystectomy become obsolete in the era of pre- operative endoscopic retrograde and magnet- ic resonance cholangiopancreatography? J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220:522-528. [CrossRef] Yoshida J, Chijiiwa K, Yamaguchi K, Yokohata K, Tanaka M. Practical classification of the branch- ing types of the biliary tree: an analysis of 1,094 consecutive direct cholangiograms. J Am Coll Surg 1996; 182:37-40.
  3. Mortele KJ, Rocha TC, Streeter JL, Taylor AJ. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic and bili- ary congenital anomalies. Radiographics 2006; 26:715-731. [CrossRef] Huang TL, Cheng YF, Chen CL, Chen TY, Lee TY. Variants of the bile ducts: clinical applica- tion in the potential donor of living-related hepatic transplantation. Transplant Proc 1996; 28:1669-1670.
  4. Mortele KJ, Ros PR. Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:389-394. [CrossRef] Choi JW, Kim TK, Kim KW, et al. Anatomic vari- ation in intrahepatic bile ducts: an analysis of intraoperative cholangiograms in 300 consec- utive donors for living donor liver transplanta- tion. Korean J Radiol 2003; 4:85-90. [CrossRef] Lee CM, Chen HC, Leung TK, Chen YY. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography of ana- tomic variants of the biliary tree in Taiwanese. J Formos Med Assoc 2004; 103:155-159.
  5. Puente SG, Bannura GC. Radiological anatomy of the biliary tract: variations and congenital abnormalities. World J Surg 1983; 7:271-276. [CrossRef] Ohkubo M, Nagino M, Kamiya J, et al. Surgical anatomy of the bile ducts at the hepatic hilum as applied to living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2004; 239