Skip to main content
Log in

3D T2-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether the addition of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography (T1w-MRC) to 3D T2-weighted MRC (T2w-MRC) improves the confidence and diagnostic accuracy of biliary anatomy in living liver donors.

Methods

Two abdominal radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed pre-operative MR studies in 58 consecutive living liver donors. The second-order bile duct visualization on T1w- and T2w-MRC images was rated on a 4-point scale. The readers also independently recorded the biliary anatomy and their diagnostic confidence using (1) combined T1w- and T2w-MRC, and (2) T2w-MRC. In the 23 right lobe donors, the biliary anatomy at imaging and the imaging-predicted number of duct orifices at surgery were compared to intra-operative findings.

Results

T1w-MRC had a higher proportion of excellent visualization than T2w-MRC, 66% vs. 45% for reader 1 and 60% vs. 31% for reader 2. The median confidence score for biliary anatomy diagnosis was significantly higher with combined T1w- and T2w-MRC than T2w-MRC alone for both readers (Reader 1: 3 vs. 2, p < 0.001; Reader 2: 3 vs. 1, p < 0.001). Compared to intra-operative findings, the accuracy of imaging-predicted number of duct orifices using combined T1w-and T2w-MRC was significantly higher than that using T2w-MRC alone (p = 0.034 for reader 1, p = 0.0082 for reader 2).

Conclusion

The addition of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1w-MRC to 3D T2w-MRC improves second-order bile duct visualization and increases the confidence in biliary anatomy diagnosis and the accuracy in the imaging-predicted number of duct orifices acquired during right lobe harvesting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhatti AB, et al. (2015) Quality of life after living donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation. World J Surg 39(9):2300–2305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ladner DP, et al. (2015) Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL). J Hepatol 62(2):346–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Xu D-W, Long X-D, Xia Q (2015) A review of life quality in living donors after living transplantation. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(1):20–26

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Olthoff KM, et al. (2005) Outcomes of 385 adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients. Ann Surg 242(3):314–325

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Suh K-S, et al. (2015) Recent advancements in and views on the donor operation in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center study of 886 patients over 13 years. Liver Transpl 21(3):329–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Parikh ND, Ladner D, Abecassis M, Butt Z (2010) Quality of life for donors after living donor liver transplantation: a review of the literature. Liver Transpl 16(12):1352–1358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoehn RS, et al. (2014) Comparing living donor and deceased donor liver transplantation: a matched national analysis from 2007 to 2012. Liver Transpl 20(11):1347–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mortele KJ, Ros PR (2001) Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(2):389–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Catalano OA, et al. (2008) Vascular and biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. RadioGraphics 28(2):259–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown RS, et al. (2003) A survey of liver transplantation from living adult donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 348(9):818–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kochhar G, Parungao JM, Hanouneh IA, Parsi MA (2013) Biliary complications following liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 19(19):2841–2846

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Umeshita K, et al. (2003) Operative morbidity of living liver donors in Japan. Lancet 362(9385):687–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kinner S, et al. (2014) Comparison of different magnetic resonance cholangiography techniques in living liver donors including Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced T1-weighted sequences. PLoS One 9(11):e113882

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lim JS, et al. (2008) MR cholangiography for evaluation of hilar branching anatomy in transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. AJR 191(2):537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ragab A, Lopez-Soler RI, Oto A, Testa G (2013) Correlation between 3D-MRCP and intra-operative findings in right liver donors. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2(1):7–13

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. An SK, et al. (2006) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donors. AJR 187(5):1223–1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee MS, et al. (2011) Gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for biliary and vascular evaluations in preoperative living liver donors: comparison with gadobenate dimelumine-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33(1):149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mangold S, et al. (2012) MRI for evaluation of potential living liver donors: a new approach including contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Abdom Imaging 37(2):244–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Puente SG, Bannura GC (1983) Radiological anatomy of the biliary tract: variations and congenital abnormalities. World J Surg 7(2):271–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim SY, et al. (2010) Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: intraindividual comparison of MR cholangiography at 3.0 and 1.5 T. Radiology 254(2):469–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhen J. Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Larry Cai, Benjamin Yeh, Antonio C Westphalen, John Roberts, and Zhen J. Wang declares no conflict of interests.

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 was a retrospective study approved by our Committee on Human Research. IRB approval was obtained for this study with waiver of informed consent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cai, L., Yeh, B.M., Westphalen, A.C. et al. 3D T2-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors. Abdom Radiol 42, 842–850 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0936-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0936-z

Keywords

Navigation