OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to assess the incidence of hepatic vein variations on multidetector CT (MDCT) for abdominal examinations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 534 MDCT scans was performed in patients sent for various abdominal pathologies between January 2017 and April 2019. After excluding 34 patients, finally total of 500 patients (N = 500) were included in the study. For simplification, we classified the hepatic vein variations as classified by Soyer et al, Fang et al and Cheng et al. RESULTS: Single right hepatic vein was seen in 458 (91.6%) out of 500 patients in our study. Two right hepatic veins were seen in 36 patients out of which 27 had common trunk and nine had independent drainage into the inferior vena cava (IVC). Common trunk of middle hepatic vein (MHV) and left hepatic vein (LHV) was seen in 405 (81%) and independent drainage of MHV and LHV into the IVC was seen in 95 (19%) of patients in our study. Amongst the segmental hepatic vein variations, most common drainage of segment IV vein was into LHV (333,66.6%) followed by MHV (148,29.6%) and IVC (19,3.8%). CONCLUSION: Hepatic vein variations are commonly seen similar to variations in hepatic artery, portal vein and biliary anatomy. Knowledge of these variations is extremely important for transplant surgeons and intervention radiologists. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Awareness of the hepatic vein variations is essential for intervention radiologists and surgeons to reduce iatrogenic complications.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to assess the incidence of hepatic vein variations on multidetector CT (MDCT) for abdominal examinations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 534 MDCT scans was performed in patients sent for various abdominal pathologies between January 2017 and April 2019. After excluding 34 patients, finally total of 500 patients (N = 500) were included in the study. For simplification, we classified the hepatic vein variations as classified by Soyer et al, Fang et al and Cheng et al. RESULTS: Single right hepatic vein was seen in 458 (91.6%) out of 500 patients in our study. Two right hepatic veins were seen in 36 patients out of which 27 had common trunk and nine had independent drainage into the inferior vena cava (IVC). Common trunk of middle hepatic vein (MHV) and left hepatic vein (LHV) was seen in 405 (81%) and independent drainage of MHV and LHV into the IVC was seen in 95 (19%) of patients in our study. Amongst the segmental hepatic vein variations, most common drainage of segment IV vein was into LHV (333,66.6%) followed by MHV (148,29.6%) and IVC (19,3.8%). CONCLUSION: Hepatic vein variations are commonly seen similar to variations in hepatic artery, portal vein and biliary anatomy. Knowledge of these variations is extremely important for transplant surgeons and intervention radiologists. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Awareness of the hepatic vein variations is essential for intervention radiologists and surgeons to reduce iatrogenic complications.
Authors: Arnold Radtke; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; Ernesto P Molmenti; Silvio Nadalinl; Tobias Schroeder; Andrea Schenk; Fuat Saner; C Valentin-Gamazo; Uta Dahmen; Lubomir Spasov; Christoph E Broelsch; Massimo Malagò Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2006 Jul-Aug
Authors: S Yagel; Z Kivilevitch; S M Cohen; D V Valsky; B Messing; O Shen; R Achiron Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 7.299