Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors at 3.0-t magnetic resonance cholangiography

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 594-602

  Kim, So Yeon ^a,b   Byun, Jae Ho ^a   Hong, Hye Suk ^a   Choi, Eugene K ^a   Lee, Seung Soo ^a   Park, Seong Ho ^a   Lee, Moon Gyu ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

3.0 T; Liver donor; Magnetic resonance cholangiography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREATH HOLDING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ORGAN DONOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HISTOLOGY; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONOR; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; BILIARY TRACT; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONORS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 49849085880     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31817e9b52     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Gridelli B, Remuzzi G. Strategies for making more organs available for transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:404-410.
2. United Network for Organ Sharing. UNOS Registry Annual Report, 2001. Richmond, VA: United Network for Organ Sharing; 2002.
3. Puente SG, Bannura GC. Radiological anatomy of the biliary tract: variations and congenital abnormalities. World J Surg. 1983;7:271-276.
4. Russell E, Yrizzary JM, Montalvo BM, et al. Left hepatic duct anatomy: implications. Radiology. 1990; 174:353-356.
5. Marcos A, Ham JM, Fisher RA, et al. Surgical management of anatomical variations of the right lobe in living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg. 2000;231:824-831.
6. Lee VS, Morgan GR, Teperman LW, et al. MR imaging as the sole preoperative imaging modality for right hepatectomy: a prospective study of living adult-to-adult liver donor candidates. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1475-1482.
7. Cheng YF, Huang TL, Chen CL, et al. Variations of the intrahepatic bile ducts: application in living related liver transplantation and splitting liver transplantation. Clin Transplant. 1997; 11:337-340.
8. Nakamura T, Tanaka K, Kiuchi T, et al. Anatomical variations and surgical strategies in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: lessons from 120 cases. Transplantation. 2002;73:1896-1903.
9. Fulcher AS, Szucs RA, Bassignani MJ, et al. Right lobe living donor liver transplantation: preoperative evaluation of the donor with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1483-1491.
10. Lee VS, Krinsky GA, Nazzaro CA, et al. Defining intrahepatic biliary anatomy in living liver transplant donor candidates at mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography versus conventional T2-weighted MR cholangiography. Radiology. 2004;233:659-666.
11. Yeh BM, Breiman RS, Taouli B, et al. Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: comparison of conventional MR, mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced excretory MR, and multi-detector row CT cholangiography- initial experience. Radiology. 2004;230:645-651.
12. Taourel P, Bret PM, Reinhold C, et al. Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: diagnosis with MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1996; 199:521-527.
13. Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:946-959.
14. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, et al. 3.0- versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 186:516-521.
15. O'Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J, et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol. 2005;78: 894-898.
16. Schindera ST, Miller CM, Ho LM, et al. Magnetic resonace cholangiography: quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:399-405.
17. Isoda H, Kataoka M, Maetani Y, et al. MRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:1000-1006.
18. Choi JW, Kim TK, Kim KW, et al. Anatomic variation in intrahepatic bile ducts: an analysis of intraoperative cholangiograms in 300 consecutive donors for living donor liver transplantation. Korean J Radiol. 2003;4:85-90.
19. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37-46.
20. Robinson BF, Bakeman R. ComKappa: a Windows 95 program for calculating kappa and related statistics. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1998;30:731-732.
21. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Fleiss JL, ed. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981:212-236.
22. Feinstein A, Cicchetti D. High agreement but low kappa. I. The problem of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:543-549.
23. Cicchetti D, Feinstein A. High agreement but low kappa. II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:551-558.
24. Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, et al. The utility of MRCP in preoperative mapping of biliary anatomy in adult-to-adult living related liver transplant donors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:209-215.
25. Papanikolaou N, Karantanas AH, Heracleous E, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparison between respiratory-triggered turbo spin-echo and breath hold single-shot turbo spin-echo sequences. Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 17:1255-1260.
26. von Falkenhausen MM, Lutterbey G, Morakkabati-Spitz N, et al. High-field-strength MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 2006;241: 156-166.
27. Vlaardingerbroek MT, den Boer JA. Motion and flow. In: Vlaardinger-broek MT, den Boer JA, eds. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1999:311-408.