Abstract
Objective
We determined mean main portal vein diameter in healthy patients evaluated with CT, compared this value to the “upper limit of normal” reported previously, and evaluated effects of age, sex, height, and BMI on portal vein diameter.
Materials and methods
Our cohort of healthy patients underwent abdominal CT as potential renal donors. We excluded patients with evidence of liver or severe cardiac disease. We recorded patients’ age, sex, height, weight, and BMI. Patients’ main portal vein diameters were measured by fellowship-trained abdominal imagers on non-contrast and post-contrast images in axial and coronal projections at a defined location. A general linear mixed model was used for analysis.
Results
191 patients with 679 main portal vein measurements were included in the analysis. Mean main portal vein diameter was 15.5 ± 1.9 mm; this value was significantly different from the upper limit of normal of 13 mm commonly referenced in the literature (95% CI: 2.22–2.69 mm higher, p < 0.0001). Portal vein diameter does not vary significantly when measured on axial vs. coronal images. On average, post-contrast main portal veins were 0.56 mm larger compared to non-contrast, (95% CI: 0.40–0.71 mm, p < 0.0071). Patient height and BMI are positively correlated with MPV diameter.
Conclusions
Normal mean portal vein diameter measured on CT was significantly larger (mean 15.5 mm) than the accepted upper limit of 13 mm. Contrast-enhanced main portal veins are significantly larger (0.56 mm) than unenhanced. Sex, height, and BMI significantly affect main portal vein diameter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Weinreb J, Kumari S, Phillips G, Pochaczevsky R (1982) Portal vein measurements by real-time sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 139:497–499
Bolondi L, Gandolfi L, Arienti V, et al. (1982) Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of portal hypertension: diminished response of portal vessels to respiration. Radiology 142:167–172
Haag K, Rossle M, Ochs A, et al. (1999) Correlation of duplex sonography findings and portal pressure in 375 patients with portal hypertension. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:631–635
Bryce TJ, Yeh BM, Qayyum A, et al. (2003) CT signs of hepatofugal portal venous flow in patients with cirrhosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1629–1633
Rani KV, Sudarsi B, Siddeswari R, Manohar S (2015) Correlation of portal vein size with esophageal varices severity in patients with cirrhosis of liver with portal hypertension. Int J Sci Res Publ 5(1), ePub, ISSN 2250-3153
Mandal L, Mandal SK, Bandyopadhyay D, Datta S (2011) Correlation of portal vein diameter and splenic size with gastro-oesophageal varices in cirrhosis of liver. J Indian Acad Clin Med 12:266–270
Niederau C, Sonnenberg A, Muller JE, et al. (1983) Sonographic measurements of the normal liver, spleen, pancreas, and portal vein. Radiology 149:537–540
O’Donohue J, Ng C, Catnach S, Farrant P, Williams R (2004) Diagnostic value of Doppler assessment of the hepatic and portal vessels and ultrasound of the spleen in liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 16:147–155
Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW (2011) Diagnostic ultrasound. St. Louis: Mosby
Kurtz AB, Middleton WD, Hertzberg BS (2004) Ultrasound. St. Louis: Mosby
Weissleder R, Rieumont MJ, Wittenberg J (2011) Primer of diagnostic imaging. St. Louis: Mosby
Prokop M, Galanski M (2003) Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. New York: TIS
Ahuja AT (2007) Diagnostic and surgical imaging anatomy. Ultrasound. Salt Lake City: Amirsys
Berzigotti A, Seijo S, Reverter E, Bosch J (2013) Assessing portal hypertension in liver diseases. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:141–155
Berzigotti A, Piscaglia F, Education E, Professional Standards Committee (2012) Ultrasound in portal hypertension—part 2—and EFSUMB recommendations for the performance and reporting of ultrasound examinations in portal hypertension. Ultraschall Med 33:8–32 (quiz 30–31)
Laird NM, Ware JH (1982) Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38:963–974
Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381
Goyal N, Jain N, Rachapalli V, Cochlin DL, Robinson M (2009) Non-invasive evaluation of liver cirrhosis using ultrasound. Clin Radiol 64:1056–1066
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL (2012) Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA 307:491–497
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was not funded by any grants.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
This study was reviewed and deemed exempt by out institutional review board.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stamm, E.R., Meier, J.M., Pokharel, S.S. et al. Normal main portal vein diameter measured on CT is larger than the widely referenced upper limit of 13 mm. Abdom Radiol 41, 1931–1936 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0785-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0785-9