Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1703–1712 | Cite as

High spatial resolution navigated 3D T1-weighted hepatobiliary MR cholangiography using Gd-EOB-DTPA for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors

  • Jei Hee Lee
  • Bohyun Kim
  • Hye Jin Kim
  • Bong-Wan Kim
  • Hee-Jung Wang
  • Jai Keun Kim



To determine the feasibility of high-resolution navigated three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted hepatobiliary MR cholangiography (Nav T1 MRC) using Gd-EOB-DTPA for biliary visualization in living liver donors and to assess added value of 3D T1-weighted hepatobiliary MRCs in improving the confidence and diagnostic accuracy of biliary anatomy in complementary to T2-weighted MRCs.


Twenty-nine right liver donors underwent 3D T2 MRC, 2D T2 MRC, breath-hold T1-weighted hepatobiliary MRC (BH T1 MRC), and Nav T1 MRC. Two readers independently reviewed and compared 3D/2D MRC set, added BH T1 MRC set, and added Nav T1 MRC set for biliary diagnostic accuracy and confidence. For each MRC, biliary segments visualization and image quality were scored.


Both BH T1 MRC and Nav T1 MRC improved accuracy and specificity in biliary diagnosis when added to 3D/2D T2 MRC-alone set, though without statistical significance (R1, 82.8% to 93.1%; R2, 82.8% to 89.7%). The added Nav T1 MRC set showed the highest diagnostic confidence with both readers. Both readers scored Nav T1 MRC with the highest visualization scores for branching ducts and overall ducts.


Combining T1-weighted hepatobiliary MRCs to 3D/2D T2 MRC set improved accuracy for biliary anatomy diagnosis; time-efficient BH T1 MRC in axial and coronal planes should be considered as a key MRC sequence complementary to T2 MRCs. Given excellent biliary visualization and superior diagnostic confidence, Nav T1 MRC in selected subjects with breath-hold difficulties and inconclusive or complex biliary variations may assist in reaching a correct biliary diagnosis.


Liver transplantation Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Gadoxetate disodium 



MR Cholangiography


Intraoperative cholangiography


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict 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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Kim RD, Sakamoto S, Haider MA, et al. (2005) Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in assessing biliary anatomy in right lobe living donors. Transplantation 79:1417–1421. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kashyap R, Bozorgzadeh A, Abt P, et al. (2008) Stratifying risk of biliary complications in adult living donor liver transplantation by magnetic resonance cholangiography. Transplantation 85:1569–1572. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee VS, Morgan GR, Teperman LW, et al. (2001) 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 176:1475–1482. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim JS, Kim MJ, Myoung S, et al. (2008) MR cholangiography for evaluation of hilar branching anatomy in transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:537–545. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cai L, Yeh BM, Westphalen AC, et al. (2017) 3D T2-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR cholangiography for evaluation of biliary anatomy in living liver donors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:842–850. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim B, Kim KW, Kim SY, et al. (2017) Coronal 2D MR cholangiography overestimates the length of the right hepatic duct in liver transplantation donors. Eur Radiol 27:1822–1830. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santosh D, Goel A, Birchall IW, et al. (2017) Evaluation of biliary ductal anatomy in potential living liver donors: comparison between MRCP and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) . Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mangold S, Bretschneider C, Fenchel M, et al. (2012) MRI for evaluation of potential living liver donors: a new approach including contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Abdom Imaging 37:244–251. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald 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:e113882. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagle SK, Busse RF, Brau AC, et al. (2012) High resolution navigated three-dimensional T(1)-weighted hepatobiliary MRI using gadoxetic acid optimized for 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:890–899. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee ES, Lee JM, Yu MH, et al. (2014) High spatial resolution, respiratory-gated, t1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the liver and the biliary tract during the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic Acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:360–366. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kawarada Y, Das BC, Taoka H (2000) Anatomy of the hepatic hilar area: the plate system. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 7:580–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim SY, Byun JH, Lee SS, et al. (2010) Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: intraindividual comparison of MR cholangiography at 3.0 and 1.5 T. Radiology 254:469–478. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990) High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 43:543–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee Y, Kim SY, Kim KW, et al. (2015) Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA for preoperative biliary mapping: correlation with intraoperative cholangiography. Acta Radiol 56:773–781. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald S, et al. (2014) Bile duct evaluation of potential living liver donors with Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR cholangiography: single-dose, double dose or half-dose contrast enhanced imaging. Eur J Radiol 83:763–767. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee MS, Lee JY, Kim SH, et al. (2011) Gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for biliary and vascular evaluations in preoperative living liver donors: comparison with gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:149–159. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    An SK, Lee JM, Suh KS, et al. (2006) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1223–1233. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim S, Mussi TC, Lee LJ, et al. (2013) Effect of flip angle for optimization of image quality of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced biliary imaging at 1.5 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:90–96. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stelter L, Freyhardt P, Grieser C, et al. (2014) An increased flip angle in late phase Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI shows improved performance in bile duct visualization compared to T2w-MRCP. Eur J Radiol 83:1723–1727. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 2:7–13. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Ajou University School of Medicine and Graduate School of MedicineAjou University HospitalSuwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine and Graduate School of MedicineAjou University HospitalSuwonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations