Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography (MRCP) with GD-EOB-DTPA in evaluating biliary complications after surgery

Colangio-RM con mezzo di contrasto (Gd-EOB-DTPA) nella valutazione delle complicanze biliari post-chirurgiche

  • Abdominal Radiology / Radiologia Addominale
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We assessed the usefulness of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography (CE-MRC) with liver-specific contrast agent in evaluating the biliary tree after hepatic surgery.

Materials and methods

A total of 142 patients with suspected biliary complications after liver surgery underwent hepatobiliary MR before and after administration of gadolinium ethoxy benzylic diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA). Unenhanced MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and postcontrast MRC were obtained in all patients. Blinded image evaluation and semiquantitative analysis comparing MRCP and CE-MRC were performed by two experienced radiologists.

Results

In all cases, optimal postcontrast visualisation of the biliary tract was obtained. In 22 patients, a postsurgical biliary complication was confirmed. MRCP detected 64% of lesions, but in 36% of cases, an alteration was only suspected but not clearly defined. CE-MRC allowed definite diagnosis in 100% of cases.

Conclusions

Hepatobiliary-specific contrast agents allow for accurate and extensive study of biliary tract alterations, especially in assessing postsurgical complications.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro lavoro è valutare l’utilità della colangio-risonanza magnetica (RM) con mezzo di contrasto epatospecifico (CE-MRC) nello studio delle complicanze post-chirurgia epatica.

Materiali e metodi

Sono stati valutati 142 pazienti sottoposti ad intervento di chirurgia epatica con sospette complicanze biliari con colangio-pancreato-RM (MRCP) e sequenze post-contrasto con somministrazione di gadolinio-acido etossi-benzil-dietilen-triamino-pentaacetico (Gd-EOB-DTPA). Due radiologi con decennale esperienza specifica hanno valutato in cieco le immagini ottenute dalla MRCP e quelle della CE-MRC con analisi semiquantitativa dei reperti.

Risultati

In tutti i casi si è ottenuta adeguata visualizzazione biliare dopo somministrazione di mezzo di contrasto (MdC). ventidue dei 142 casi esaminati hanno mostrato complicanze biliari post-chirurgiche. La MRCP ha rilevato il 64% delle lesioni, ma nel 36% dei casi ha permesso solo di sospettare un’alterazione, senza consentire una definizione dirimente. La CE-MRC ha consentito una diagnosi certa nel 100% dei casi.

Conclusioni

L’uso di MdC ad escrezione epatobiliare consente uno studio accurato e panoramico delle alterazioni delle vie biliari, specie nelle complicanze postchirurgiche.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Rodríguez FJG, Montalvo MB, Freire RC et al (2008) Management of patients with iatrogenic bile duct injury. Cir Esp 84:20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lau WY, Lai ECH (2007) Classification of iatrogenic bile duct injury. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 6:459–463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ragozzino A, De Ritis R, Mosca A et al (2004) Value of MR cholangiography in patients with iatrogenic bile duct injury after cholecystectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1567–1572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yamashita Y, Takada T, Kawarada Y et al (2007) Surgical treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 14:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flum DR, Cheadle A, Prela C et al (2003) Bile duct injury during cholecystectomy and survival in medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 290:2168–2173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Özogğul YB, Özer İ, Orugğ T et al (2009) Spontaneous hepaticoduodenal fistula functioning like a bilioenteric anastomosis following bile duct injury: case report. The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology 20:220–222

    Google Scholar 

  7. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN et al (1994) Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet 343:135–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shea JA, Healey MJ, Berlin JA et al (1996) Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 224:609–620

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hung HH, Chen TS, Tseng HS et al (2009) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage is an effective rescue therapy for biliary complications in liver transplant recipients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Chin Med Assoc 72:395–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yazumi S, Chiba T (2005) Biliary complications after a right-lobe living donor liver transplantation. J Gastroenterol 40:861–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pascher A, Neuhaus P (2005) Bile duct complications after liver transplantation. Transplant International 18:627–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alfieri S, Di Miceli D, Pericoli Ridolfini M et al (2006) Occlusione del dotto pancreatico dopo duodenocefalopancreasectomia. Tecnica, diabete post-operatorio e trattamento delle fistole pancreatiche. Osp Ital Chir 12:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Alexakis N, Sutton R, Neoptolemos JP (2004) Surgical treatment of pancreatic fistula. Dig Surg 21:262–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brady AP, McGrath FP, Moote DJ, Malone DE (1992) Post-laparoscopic cholecystectomies bilomas: preliminary experience. Clin Radiol 46:333–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vitale GC, Stephens G, Wieman TJ, Larson GM (1993) Use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of biliary complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery 114:806–814

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Laurent V, Ayav A, Hoeffel C et al (2009) Imaging of the postoperative biliary tract. J Radiol 90:905–917

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoeffel C, Azizi L, Lewin M et al (2006) Normal and pathologic features of the postoperative biliary tract at 3D MR cholangiopancreatography and MR imaging. Radiographics 26:1603–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. De Filippo M, Calabrese M, Quinto S et al (2008) Congenital anomalies and variations of the bile and the pancreatic ducts: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography findings, epidemiology and clinical significante. Radiol Med 113:841–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Filippone A, Ambrosini R, Fuschi M et al (2003) Impatto clinico della colangiopancreatografia a risonanza magnetica nei pazienti con patologia biliare. Radiol Med 105:27–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manfredi R, Mehrabi S, Motton M et al (2008) MR imaging and MR cholangiopancreatography of multifocal intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the side branches: MR pattern and its evolution. Radiol Med 11:414–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195:785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee NK, Kim S, Lee FW et al (2009) Biliary MR imaging with Gd-EOBDTPA and its clinical applications. Radiographics 29:1707–1724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J et al (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions al different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Erkel AR, Pijl, van de Berg-Huysmans AA et al (2002) Hepatic metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: relationship between size of metastases, standard of reference, and detection rates. Radiology 224:404–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Narita M, Hatano E, Arizono S et al (2009) Expression of AOTP1B3 determines uptake of Gd-EOBDTPA in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 44:793–798

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vander Borght S, Libbrecht L, Blokzijl H et al (2005) Diagnostic and pathogenetic implications of the expression of hepatic transporters in focal lesions occurring in normal liver. J Pathol 207:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zollner G, Wagner M, Fickert P et al (2005) Hepatobiliary transporter expression in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 25:367–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pecchi A, De Santis M, Di Benedetto F et al (2010) Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in biliary complications of orthotopic liver transplantation. Radiol Med 115:1065–1079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Palmucci S, Mauro LA, Coppolino M et al (2010) Evaluation of the biliary and pancreatic system with 2D SSFSE, breathhold 3D FRFSE and respiratorytriggered 3D FRFSE sequences. Radiol Med 115:467–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S et al (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bollow M, Taupitz M, Hamm B et al (1997) Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA as a hepatobiliary contrast agent for use in MR cholangiography: results of an in vivo phase-I clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol 7:126–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlos RC, Hussain HK, Song JH, Francis IR (2002) Gadoliniumethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid as an intrabiliary contrast agent: preliminary assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:87–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vitellas KM, El-Dieb A, Vaswani KK, et al (2002) Using contrastenhanced MR cholangiography with IV mangafodipir trisodium (Teslascan) to evaluate bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy: a prospective study of 11 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:409–416

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kapoor V, Baron RL, Peterson MS (2004) Bile leaks after surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:451–458

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Li JH, Liu HT (2005) Diagnosis and management of cystic duct leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of 3 cases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 4:147–151

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim JY, Kim KW, Ahn C et al (2008) Spectrum of biliary and nonbiliary complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: radiologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:783–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lohan D, Walsh S, McLoughlin R et al (2005) Imaging of the complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur Radiol 15:904–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sharma S, Gurakar A, Jabbour N (2008) Biliary strictures following liver transplantation: past, present and preventive strategies. Liver Transpl 14:759–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Verdonk RC, Buis CI, Porte RJ et al (2006) Anastomotic biliary strictures after liver transplantation: causes and consequences. Liver Transpl 12:726–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thethy S, Thomson B, Pleass H et al (2004) Management of biliary tract complications after orthotopic liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 18:647–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Greif F, Bronsther OL, Van Thiel DH et al (1994) The incidence, timing and management of biliary tract complications after orthotopic liver transplantation. Ann Surg Jan 219:40–45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Eurich D, Seehofer D, Veltzke-Schlieker W et al (2009) Successful endoscopic and surgical management of non-anastomotic biliary strictures after liver transplantation — case report. Ann Transplant 14:47–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sicklick JK, Camp MS, Lillemoe KD et al (2005) Surgical management of bile duct injuries sustained during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: perioperative results in 200 patients. Ann Surg 241:786–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gueroult S, Pann Y, Duron F et al (2004) Completion pancreatectomy for postoperative peritonitis after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Early and late outcome. Arch Surg 139:16–19

    Google Scholar 

  45. Benzoni E, Lorenzin D, Baccarani U et al (2006) Resective surgery for liver tumor: a multivariate analysis of causes and risk factors linked to postoperative complications. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 5:526–533

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tanaka S, Hirohashi K, Tanaka H et al (2002) Incidence and management of bile leakage after hepatic resection for malignant hepatic tumors. J Am Coll Surg 195:484–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Papanikolaou N, Prassopoulos P, Eracleous E et al (2001) Contrastenhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography versus heavily T2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol 36:682–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Asbach P, Warmuth C, Stemmer A et al (2008) High spatial resolution T1-weighted MR imaging of liver and biliary tract during uptake phase of a hepatocyte-specific contrast medium. Invest Radiol 43:809–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Holzapfel K, Breitwieser C, Prinz C et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography using gadolinium-EOB-DTPA. Preliminary experience and clinical applications. Radiologe 47:536–544

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Marin D, Bova V, Agnello F et al (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography for the noninvasive detection of an active bile duct leak after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:213–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiologia Clinica, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Conca 71, Torrette di Ancona, 60126, Ancona, Italy

    L. Salvolini, C. Urbinati, G. Valeri, C. Ferrara & A. Giovagnoni

Authors
  1. L. Salvolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Urbinati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Valeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Ferrara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Giovagnoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Salvolini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salvolini, L., Urbinati, C., Valeri, G. et al. Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography (MRCP) with GD-EOB-DTPA in evaluating biliary complications after surgery. Radiol med 117, 354–368 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0731-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0731-4

Keywords

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation