Literature DB >> 15973711

"All-in-one" imaging protocols for the evaluation of potential living liver donors: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography.

Tobias Schroeder1, Massimo Malagó, Jörg F Debatin, Mathias Goyen, Silvio Nadalin, Stefan G Ruehm.   

Abstract

In order to compare the performance of "all-in-one" magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and "all-in-one" multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in the preharvest evaluation 25 potential living donors underwent both MRI and MDCT. MRI was performed on a high-performance 1.5-T scanner, computed tomography (CT) on a 4-row multidetector-scanner. Both scan protocols included angiography of the arterial and venous hepatic systems. CT additionally included infusion of a biliary contrast agent. Data analysis was performed by 4 reviewers, based on source images, multiplanar reformats, and three-dimensional (3D) postprocessing. Determination of image quality was based on a 4-point image quality rating (IQR) scale, ranging from 1 = nondiagnostic to 4 = excellent. Preoperative and intraoperative (n = 13) findings were correlated. Magnetic resonance (MR) examinations were generally well tolerated. Within the CT scan, 2 candidates presented moderate adverse reaction to the biliary contrast agent. MRI and CT showed the same benign parenchymal lesions (IQR MR: 3.7; IQR CT: 3.4). Determination of liver volumes was easier based on CT (IQR MR: 3.3; IQR CT: 3.6). Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) revealed 10 variants of the arterial liver supply (IQR: 3.0) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) revealed 13 variants (IQR: 3.5). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) identified 4 biliary variants (IQR: 1.3) and CT cholangiography identified 17 (IQR: 3.5). MRI and CT each showed 4 hepatic and portal venous variants (IQR MR: 3.4, CT: 2.8). CT and MR findings correlated well with intraoperative findings. In conclusion, both techniques proved to be efficient to evaluate potential living liver donors' anatomy in a single diagnostic step. The main advantage of CT lies in the ability to accurately assess the biliary anatomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15973711     DOI: 10.1002/lt.20429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  30 in total

1.  Prospective intraindividual comparison between respiratory-triggered balanced steady-state free precession and breath-hold gradient-echo and time-of-flight magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of portal and hepatic veins.

Authors:  Jürgen K Willmann; Kerstin Göpfert; Amelie M Lutz; Daniel Nanz; Lucas McCormack; Henrik Petrowsky; Burkhardt Seifert; Patrice Hervo; Borut Marincek; Dominik Weishaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound detects perfusion defects in an ex vivo porcine liver model: a useful tool for the study of hepatic reperfusion.

Authors:  Ahmed Alzaraa; Dhya Al-Leswas; Wen Yuan Chung; Gianpiero Gravante; Morgan Bruno; Kevin West; Ashley Dennison; David Lloyd
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 1.731

3.  Multidetector computed tomography for preoperative assessment of hepatic vasculature and prediction of splenic artery steal syndrome in patients with liver cirrhosis before transplantation.

Authors:  Christian Grieser; Timm Denecke; Ingo G Steffen; Maria Avgenaki; Vera Fröhling; Martina Mogl; Dirk Schnapauff; Lukas Lehmkuhl; Lars Stelter; Florian Streitparth; Jan Langrehr; Jan-Holger Rothe; Bernd Hamm; Enrique Lopez Hänninen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Younger Age is an Independent Factor for Graft Weight Overestimation: Analysis of the Clinical Impact on Recipient Outcomes in 340 Japanese Living Liver Donors.

Authors:  Toshihiro Kitajima; Toshimi Kaido; Tetsuya Tajima; Tadahiro Uemura; Yasuhiro Fujimoto; Andrea Schenk; Shinji Uemoto
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Feasibility of liver graft procurement with donor gallbladder preservation in living donor liver transplantation.

Authors:  Jia-Hong Dong; Sheng Ye; Wei-Dong Duan; Wen-Bing Ji; Yu-Rong Liang
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 6.047

Review 6.  [Living liver donor: indications and technical aspects].

Authors:  S Nadalin; I Capobianco; I Königsrainer; B Harder; A Königsrainer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 0.955

7.  Determinants of second-order bile duct visualization at CT cholangiography in potential living liver donors.

Authors:  Alexander W Keedy; Richard S Breiman; Emily M Webb; John P Roberts; Fergus V Coakley; Benjamin M Yeh
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Biliary complications in liver transplantation.

Authors:  See Ching Chan; Sheung Tat Fan
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 6.047

9.  Liver transplantation.

Authors:  Deok-Bog Moon; Sung-Gyu Lee
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 4.519

10.  Imaging evaluation of the liver using multi-detector row computed tomography in micropigs as potential living liver donors.

Authors:  Jung Min Ryu; Dong Hyun Kim; Min Young Lee; Sang Hun Lee; Jae Hong Park; Seung Pil Yun; Min Woo Jang; Seong Hwan Kim; Gyu Jin Rho; Ho Jae Han
Journal:  J Vet Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.672

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.