F Safar1, T Kamura, K Okamuto, K Sasai, F Gejyo. 1. Department of Radiology, Niigata University Faculty of Medicine, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan. farahsafar1@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the role of magnetic resonance T1-weighted gradient-echo (MRT1-GE) imaging in hepatolithiasis. METHODS: MRT1-GE, precontrast computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) of 10 patients with hepatolithiasis were compared for their diagnostic accuracies in the detection and localization of intrahepatic calculi. The diagnosis of hepatolithiasis was confirmed by surgery. For localization of the stone, we divided the bile ducts into six areas: right and left hepatic ducts and bile ducts of the lateral, medial, right anterior, and right posterior segments of the liver. Chemical analysis of the stones was performed in eight patients. RESULTS: The total number of segments proved by surgery to contain stones was 18. Although not significantly different, the sensitivity of MRT1-GE was 77.8% (14 of 18 segments), higher than that of MRCP (66.7%, 12 of 18 segments) and that of CT (50%, nine of 18 segments). The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRCP + MRT1) was significantly higher than that of CT (p < 0.01). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the result of surgery was significantly affected only by the result of magnetic resonance imaging. On MRT1-GE, all the depicted stones appeared as high-intensity signal areas within the low-intensity bile duct irrespective of their chemical composition. CONCLUSION: MRT1-GE imaging provides complementary information concerning hepatolithiasis.
BACKGROUND: We examined the role of magnetic resonance T1-weighted gradient-echo (MRT1-GE) imaging in hepatolithiasis. METHODS:MRT1-GE, precontrast computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) of 10 patients with hepatolithiasis were compared for their diagnostic accuracies in the detection and localization of intrahepatic calculi. The diagnosis of hepatolithiasis was confirmed by surgery. For localization of the stone, we divided the bile ducts into six areas: right and left hepatic ducts and bile ducts of the lateral, medial, right anterior, and right posterior segments of the liver. Chemical analysis of the stones was performed in eight patients. RESULTS: The total number of segments proved by surgery to contain stones was 18. Although not significantly different, the sensitivity of MRT1-GE was 77.8% (14 of 18 segments), higher than that of MRCP (66.7%, 12 of 18 segments) and that of CT (50%, nine of 18 segments). The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRCP + MRT1) was significantly higher than that of CT (p < 0.01). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the result of surgery was significantly affected only by the result of magnetic resonance imaging. On MRT1-GE, all the depicted stones appeared as high-intensity signal areas within the low-intensity bile duct irrespective of their chemical composition. CONCLUSION:MRT1-GE imaging provides complementary information concerning hepatolithiasis.