Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: Intraindividual comparison of MR cholangiography at 3.0 and 1.5 t1

Radiology

Volumn 254, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 469-478

  Kim, So Yeon ^a,b   Byun, Jae Ho ^a   Lee, Seung Soo ^a   Park, Seong Ho ^a   Jang, Yun Jin ^a   Lee, Moon Gyu ^a  

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

^b Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMED CONSENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ORGAN DONOR; PEROPERATIVE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONOR; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; BILIARY TRACT; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77449133776     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090003     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Puente SG, Bannura GC. Radiological anatomy of the biliary tract: variations and congenital abnormalities. World J Surg 1983;7(2):271-276
2. Russell E, Yrizzary JM, Montalvo BM, Guerra JJ, Al-Refai F. Left hepatic duct anatomy: implications. Radiology 1990;174(2):353-356.
3. Marcos A, Ham JM, Fisher RA, Olzinski AT, Posner MP. Surgical management of anatomical variations of the right lobe in living donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg 2000;231(6):824-831.
4. 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(6):1475-1482.
5. Cheng YF, Huang TL, Chen CL, Chen YS, Lee TY. Variations of the intrahepatic bile ducts: application in living related liver transplantation and splitting liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 1997;11(4):337-340.
6. 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(12):1896-1903.
7. 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(3):659-666.
8. Yeh BM, Breiman RS, Taouli B, Qayyum A, Roberts JP, Coakley FV. 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(3):645-651.
9. Goldman J, Florman S, Varotti G, et al. Noninvasive preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in right-lobe living donors with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography. Transplant Proc 2003;35(4):1421-1422.
10. Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 2005;15(5):946-959.
11. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Paulson EK. Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14(1):17-26.
12. Schindera ST, Merkle EM. MR cholangiopancreatography: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007;15(3):355-364.
13. Uematsu H, Takahashi M, Dougherty L, Hatabu H. High field body MR imaging: preliminary experiences. Clin Imaging 2004;28(3):159-162.
14. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, Jaffe TA, Gullotto C. 3.0- Versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(2):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(934):894-898.
16. Schindera ST, Miller CM, Ho LM, et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography: quantitative and qualitative comparifi son of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2007;42(6):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(5):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(2):85-90.
19. Kim SY, Byun JH, Hong HS, et al. Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors at 3.0-T magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol 2008;43(8):594-602.
20. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003;228(2):303-308.
21. Robinson BF, Bakeman R. ComKappa: a Windows 95 program for calculating kappa and related statistics. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1998;30:731-732.
22. 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(1):156-166.
23. 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.
24. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa. I. The problem of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43(6):543-549.
25. Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa. II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43(6):551-558.
26. Song GW, Lee SG, Hwang S, et al. Preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy of donor in living donor liver transplantation by conventional nonenhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Transpl Int 2007;20(2):167-173.
27. Papanikolaou N, Karantanas AH, Heracleous E, Costa JC, Gourtsoyiannis N. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparison between respiratory-triggered turbo spin-echo and breath hold single-shot turbo spin-echo sequences. Magn Reson Imaging 1999;17(9):1255-1260.
28. Kim BS, Kim JH, Choi GM, et al. Comparison of three free-breathing T2-weighted MRI sequences in the evaluation of focal liver lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(1):W19-W27.
29. Lee SS, Byun JH, Hong HS, et al. Image quality and focal lesion detection on T2-weighted MR imaging of the liver: comparison of two high-resolution free-breathing imaging techniques with two breath-hold imaging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26(2):323-330.
30. An SK, Lee JM, Suh KS, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(5):1223-1233.