| Literature DB >> 26811552 |
Severino Aires Araujo Neto1, Henrique Almeida Franca2, Carlos Fernando de Mello Júnior3, Eulâmpio José Silva Neto4, Gustavo Ramalho Pessoa Negromonte2, Cláudia Martina Araújo Duarte2, Bartolomeu Fragoso Cavalcanti Neto2, Rebeca Danielly da Fonseca Farias2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prevalence of anatomical variations of celiac arterial trunk (CAT) branches and hepatic arterial system (HAS), as well as the CAT diameter, length and distance to the superior mesenteric artery.Entities:
Keywords: Anatomy; Celiac trunk; Hepatic artery; Multidetector computed tomography
Year: 2015 PMID: 26811552 PMCID: PMC4725396 DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.0100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Bras ISSN: 0100-3984
Figure 1Contrast-enhanced CT with volume rendering shows normal anatomy of the celiac trunk comprising the left gastric artery (LGA), splenic artery (SA) and common hepatic artery (CHA).
Figure 2Contrast-enhanced CT with volume rendering demonstrating hepatosplenic trunk with left gastric artery (LGA) originating in the aorta, immediately above the trunk. The splenic artery (SA) and common hepatic artery (CHA) originate from the same trunk.
Figure 3Contrast-enhanced CT with volume rendering showing normal anatomy of the hepatic arterial system. Common hepatic artery (CHA) originating the hepatic artery proper (HAP), after emergence of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA), right hepatic artery (RHA) and left hepatic artery (LHA) originating from HAP.
Figure 4Contrast-enhanced CT with volume rendering identifying variation of the right hepatic artery (RHA) that emerges from the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). (LGA, left gastric artery; SA, splenic artery; HAP, hepatic artery proper; GDA, gastroduodenal artery).
Figure 5Axial, contrast-enhanced CT showing the longer length of the celiac trunk observed in the present study.
Figure 6Axial contrast-enhanced CT showing the largest diameter observed in the present study.
Normal pattern and variation of the celiac trunk in percentage.
| Study | Country | Method | Normal pattern | Variation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current study | Brazil | 60 | Multidetector CT | 90% | 10% |
| Iezzi et al.( | Italy | 555 | Multidetector CT | 72.1% | 27.9% |
| Koops et al.( | Germany | 604 | Multidetector CT | 79.1% | 20.9% |
| Panagouli et al.( | Greece, Caucasians | 62 | Cadaver dissection | 88.5% | 11.5% |
| Prakash et al.( | India | 50 | Cadaver dissection | 86% | 14% |
| Silveira et al.( | Brazil | 21 | Cadaver dissection | 71.4% | 28.6% |
| Song et al.( | South Korea | 5002 | Multidetector CT | 89.1% | 10.1% |
| Sureka et al.( | India | 600 | Multidetector CT | 94.5% | 5.5% |
| Ugurel et al.( | Turkey | 100 | Multidetector CT | 89% | 11% |
Normal pattern and HAS variation.
| Study | Country | Method | Normal pattern | Variation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perez-Saborido et al.( | Spain | 325 | Surgical | 78% | 22% |
| Gumus et al.( | Turkey | 820 | Multidetector CT | 76.8% | 23.2% |
| Sebben et al.( | Brazil | 30 | Cadaver dissection | 60% | 40% |
| Freitas et al.( | Brazil | 246 | Surgical | 76.8%% | 23.2% |
| Bertevello et al.( | Brazil | 60 | Cadaver dissection | 68.3% | 31.7% |
| Chambers et al.( | United States of America | 50 | Multidetector CT | 84% | 16% |
| Koops et al.( | Germany | 604 | Multidetector CT | 79.1% | 20.9% |
| Sureka et al.( | India | 600 | Multidetector CT | 79.6% | 20.4% |
| Song et al.( | South Korea | 5002 | Multidetector CT | 58% | 42% |
| Ugurel et al.( | Turkey | 100 | Multidetector CT | 52% | 48% |