One‐stop‐shop preoperative evaluation for living liver donors with gadoxetic acid disodium‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: efficiency and additional benefit

Adult Gadolinium DTPA Male Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance Contrast Media Prognosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Pancreatic Neoplasms Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Bile Duct Neoplasms Risk Factors Case-Control Studies Multidetector Computed Tomography Living Donors Humans Female Prospective Studies Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal Follow-Up Studies
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12646 Publication Date: 2015-10-08T16:22:35Z
ABSTRACT
AbstractObjectiveTo explore the efficiency, cost, and time for examination of one‐stop‐shop gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd‐EOB‐DTPA)‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in preoperative evaluation for parent donors by comparing with multidetector computer tomography combined with conventional MR cholangiopancreatography (MDCT‐MRCP).Materials and methodsForty parent donors were evaluated with MDCT‐MRCP, and the other 40 sex‐, age‐, and weight‐matched donors with Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI. Anatomical variations and graft volume determined by pre‐ and intra‐operative findings, costs and time for imaging were recorded. Image quality was ranked on a 4‐point scale and compared between both groups.ResultsGd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI provided better image quality than MDCT‐MRCP for the depiction of portal veins and bile ducts by both reviewers (p < 0.05), hepatic veins by one reviewer (p < 0.05), rather hepatic arteries by both reviewers (p < 0.01). Sixty‐nine living donors proceeded to liver donation with all anatomical findings accurately confirmed by intra‐operative findings. The “in‐room” time of Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI was 12 min longer than MDCT‐MRCP. Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI was cheaper than MDCT‐MRCP (US$519.72 vs. US$631.85).ConclusionOne‐stop‐shop Gd‐EOB‐DTPA‐enhanced MRI has similar diagnostic accuracy as MDCT‐MRCP and can provide additional benefit in terms of costs and convenience in preoperative evaluation for parent donors.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Coming soon ....
REFERENCES (41)
CITATIONS (13)