Literature DB >> 6745614

Comparison of the extrahepatic bile duct size measured by ultrasound and by different radiographic methods.

C Niederau, A Sonnenberg, J Mueller.   

Abstract

The present prospective study was done to compare the size of the extrahepatic bile duct as measured by ultrasound with those measured by different radiographic techniques. The sonographic diameters were significantly correlated to the diameters measured by intravenous cholangiography (r = 0.92), to the diameters measured by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (r = 0.81), and to the diameters measured by percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (r = 0.85). The mean radiographic diameters were significantly greater for intravenous cholangiography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography than the mean sonographic diameters. Analyzing the regression lines between the radiographic and sonographic diameters and studying the sonographic diameters during intravenous cholangiography, the discrepancy between sonographic and radiographic measurements appears to be due to several factors: (a) radiographic magnification, (b) choleretic effects in intravenous cholangiography, (c) sonographic minification, (d) dilatation of the extrahepatic bile duct due to direct injection of a contrast agent in endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, and (e) premedication in endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. Because the normal size of the extrahepatic bile duct is not usually assessed in healthy subjects by intravenous cholangiography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, the mean diameter and the upper normal limit of the extrahepatic bile duct were calculated for intravenous cholangiography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography using previous sonographic data from healthy subjects and the present regression lines. The calculated upper limit for normal was 7-8 mm in intravenous cholangiography and 10-11 mm in endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and in percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography.

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6745614

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  5 in total

Review 1.  The investigation of unexplained biliary dilatation.

Authors:  Alan Coss; Robert Enns
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2009-04

2.  Yield of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the investigation of bile duct dilatation in asymptomatic patients.

Authors:  Shlomit Tamir; Marius Braun; Assaf Issachar; Gil N Bachar; Ofer Benjaminov
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 3.  What should be done with a dilated bile duct?

Authors:  Adrian N Holm; Henning Gerke
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2010-04

4.  The preoperatively normal bile duct does not dilate after cholecystectomy: results of a five year study.

Authors:  A W Majeed; B Ross; A G Johnson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of unexplained common bile duct dilatation on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Surinder Singh Rana; Deepak Kumar Bhasin; Vishal Sharma; Chalapathi Rao; Rajesh Gupta; Kartar Singh
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2013
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.