A New Quantitative Classification of the Extrahepatic Biliary Tract Related to Cystic Duct Implantation.
Anatomy
Biliary tract
Cholangiopancreatography
Cystic duct
Lithiasis
Magnetic resonance
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
29
07
2020
accepted:
28
10
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
6
2
2022
entrez:
3
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Knowledge regarding biliary anatomy and its variations, including the cystic duct (CD), is important in the pre-surgical setting and for predicting biliary diseases. However, no large series has focused on CD evaluation using a quantitative analysis. The primary aim of this prospective study was to create a 'taxonomic' classification of CD anatomy in a large cohort of subjects who underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). The secondary aim was to evaluate the correlations between extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) variants and biliary diseases. We enrolled patients who underwent MRCP for different clinical indications from January 2017 to May 2019. Demographical, anatomical and clinical data were evaluated using statistical analyses, as appropriate. The anatomical assessment of EHBD was performed using the standard classification for CD in low, medium, and high insertions, and the lengths of CD to the duodenal papilla (DP), and EHBD was determined to conduct a new quantitative analysis. The final study population comprised 1004 subjects. A new classification for EHBD as per the percentile distribution of the ratio CDDP/EHBD was designed, and the following categories were obtained: type 1 (below the 25th percentile) for CDDP/EHBD ratio ≤ 50%; type 2 (25th to 75th percentile) for CDDP/EHBD ratio 51-75% and type 3 (above the 75th percentiles) for CDDP/EHBD ratio > 75%. Type 1 of the new classification of CD implantation was significantly superior in terms of the detection of low, medial and intra-pancreatic CD that was significantly correlated with a high risk of choledochal lithiasis in comparison with the standard classification (P < 0.001). The new classification of CD implantation enables identification of the vast majority of intra-pancreatic CDs that are correlated with a high risk of choledochal lithiasis in a single category (type 1) that is easy to identify using imaging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Knowledge regarding biliary anatomy and its variations, including the cystic duct (CD), is important in the pre-surgical setting and for predicting biliary diseases. However, no large series has focused on CD evaluation using a quantitative analysis. The primary aim of this prospective study was to create a 'taxonomic' classification of CD anatomy in a large cohort of subjects who underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). The secondary aim was to evaluate the correlations between extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) variants and biliary diseases.
METHODS
We enrolled patients who underwent MRCP for different clinical indications from January 2017 to May 2019. Demographical, anatomical and clinical data were evaluated using statistical analyses, as appropriate. The anatomical assessment of EHBD was performed using the standard classification for CD in low, medium, and high insertions, and the lengths of CD to the duodenal papilla (DP), and EHBD was determined to conduct a new quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
The final study population comprised 1004 subjects. A new classification for EHBD as per the percentile distribution of the ratio CDDP/EHBD was designed, and the following categories were obtained: type 1 (below the 25th percentile) for CDDP/EHBD ratio ≤ 50%; type 2 (25th to 75th percentile) for CDDP/EHBD ratio 51-75% and type 3 (above the 75th percentiles) for CDDP/EHBD ratio > 75%. Type 1 of the new classification of CD implantation was significantly superior in terms of the detection of low, medial and intra-pancreatic CD that was significantly correlated with a high risk of choledochal lithiasis in comparison with the standard classification (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The new classification of CD implantation enables identification of the vast majority of intra-pancreatic CDs that are correlated with a high risk of choledochal lithiasis in a single category (type 1) that is easy to identify using imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33269458
doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04852-8
pii: 10.1007/s11605-020-04852-8
pmc: PMC8484130
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2268-2279Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Surg. 2015 May;261(5):976-83
pubmed: 24979607
Gastroenterology Res. 2014 Feb;7(1):12-16
pubmed: 27785263
Digestion. 2014;89(3):194-200
pubmed: 24732700
Transplant Proc. 2003 Sep;35(6):2248-9
pubmed: 14529903
Radiographics. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):715-31
pubmed: 16702450
World J Surg. 1983 Mar;7(2):271-6
pubmed: 6868640
Surg Endosc. 2007 Jan;21(1):48-52
pubmed: 16960679
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jul 22;341(4):258-64
pubmed: 10413739
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Nov;7(11 Suppl):S84-8
pubmed: 19896105
Radiographics. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):3-22; questionnaire 288-94
pubmed: 11158640
Eur Radiol. 2014 Dec;24(12):3142-9
pubmed: 25120204
Surg Today. 2020 Apr;50(4):396-401
pubmed: 31664526
Radiology. 1996 May;199(2):521-7
pubmed: 8668805
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;8(2):213-9
pubmed: 19835989
Surg Endosc. 2005 Apr;19(4):574-80
pubmed: 15759179
Clin Radiol. 2019 Mar;74(3):220-227
pubmed: 30554806
Surg Radiol Anat. 1999;21(5):325-7
pubmed: 10635096
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Aug;45(7):626-9
pubmed: 21633309
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(3):329-38
pubmed: 16022643
Clin Anat. 2020 Jul;33(5):646-652
pubmed: 31576611
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10(5):345-51
pubmed: 14598134
Korean J Radiol. 2003 Apr-Jun;4(2):85-90
pubmed: 12845303
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2016 Sep;35(5):379-384
pubmed: 27660206
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Apr;15(4):623-30
pubmed: 21318444