|
| Usefulness of Preoperative Doppler Ultrasonography in Liver |
|
| Jee Hee Kang, M.D. Won Jae Lee, M.D., Seung Hoon Kim, M.D. |
|
| Department of Radiology and Gastrointestinal Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine |
|
| PURPOSE : To evaluate the usefulness of Doppler ultrasound (DUS) as a preoperative radiologic examination for the
liver transplant recipients and to compare its diagnostic efficacy with computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS and METHODS : Among one hundred three liver transplant recipients, fifty three subjects who underwent
both DUS and triphasic helical CT preoperatively were included in this study (age range: 19-62 yrs, mean age:
43 yrs, M:F=4.3:1). Retrospective comparison between DUS and CT scan was performed using the following
parameters: (1) the presence or absence of hepatic tumor and portal vein thrombosis, (2) the patency of the main
portal vein (PV) and hepatic vein (HV), (3) the size of the proper hepatic artery and main portal vein, (4) the
flow velocity and direction of hepatic vasculatures (hepatic artery, portal vein, and hepatic vein), (5) the diagnosis
of hepatic parenchymal disease, and (6) the extrahepatic manifestations of hepatic parenchymal disease.
However, this study was particularly focused on whether DUS could offer additional informations over CT.
RESULTS : Among seventeen surgically confirmed hepatic tumors (15 hepatocellular carcinomas and two cholangiocarcinomas),
11 hepatocellular carcinomas (85%) and two cholangiocarcinomas (100%) were detected on
CT scan while only six hepatocellular carcinomas (46%) and one cholangiocarcinoma (50%) were detected on
DUS. For the evaluation of portal vein thrombosis, 12 cases with thrombi on CT scan and seven thrombi on
DUS were detected, respectively. Twenty percent of the main PV and fifteen percent of HV were not clearly delineated
on DUS whose CT scan demonstrated the patent PV and HV in these cases. The size of the proper hepatic
artery and main portal vein was measurable on CT scan in all cases while 89% of the proper hepatic artery
and 94% of the main PV were measurable on DUS. Doppler waveforms of the hepatic artery and portal vein
were obtained in 94% and 89% of all patients, respectively, and the direction of all portal veins was all hepatopetal.
There are no difference between DUS and CT in the diagnosis of hepatic parenchymal diseases and
their extrahepatic manifestations.
CONCLUSION : In the preoperative radiologic evaluation of liver transplant recipient, CT turned out to be superior
than DUS in all parameters described above. DUS alone offers additional information on hepatic blood flow.
Therefore, DUS does not appear to be essential in the preoperative evaluation of liver transplant recipient if preoperative
CT scan is performed. |
|
| Keyword : Liver, transplantation, Liver, CT, Liver, US |
|
pdf파일 : 09-14강지희(사진없음).pdf 
|
|
> Journal > Journal Search 
Journal of Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine 2002 ; 21 (1) : p.9-14
