Liver-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (Ce-MRCP) in Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Biliary Leakage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patient Selection
- -
- Patients under 18 years old
- -
- Patients who were pregnant
- -
- Patients who had not undergone both Ce-MRCP and PTC/ERCP.
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Imaging Protocol
2.4. PTC
2.5. ERCP
2.6. Outcome Measures
2.7. Study Variables
- Data were extrapolated from a prospectively maintained database recording continuous and discrete variables regarding baseline characteristics, surgical procedure, in-hospital blood test, postoperative course and complications with a 90-day follow-up.
2.8. Ethics
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Treatment of Leak and Time for Leak Resolution
3.2. Management of Cholangitis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ragozzino, A.; De Ritis, R.; Mosca, A.; Iaccarino, V.; Imbriaco, M. Value of MR cholangiography in patients with iatrogenic bile duct injury after cholecystectomy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004, 183, 1567–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salvolini, L.; Urbinati, C.; Valeri, G.; Ferrara, C.; Giovagnoni, A. Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography (MRCP) with GD-EOB-DTPA in evaluating biliary complications after surgery. Radiol. Med. 2012, 117, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tripathi, M.; Chandrashekar, N.; Kumar, R.; Thomas, E.; Agarwal, S.; Bal, C.; Malhotra, A. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy. An effective tool in the management of bile leak following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Clin. Imaging 2004, 28, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aduna, M.; Larena, J.A.; Martín, D.; Martínez-Guereñu, B.; Aguirre, I.; Astigarraga, E. Bile duct leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Value of contrast-enhanced MRCP. Abdom. Imaging 2005, 30, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Citterio, D.; Vaiani, M.; Sposito, C.; Rossi, R.E.; Flores, M.; Battiston, C.; Mazzaferro, V. Improved management of grade B biliary leaks after complex liver resections using gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Surgery 2021, 170, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, C.J.; Hong, K.; Lee, J.-M.; Han, E.S.; Hong, S.K.; Choi, Y.; Yi, N.-J.; Lee, K.-W.; Suh, K.-S. Clinical usefulness of T1-weighted MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA for the evaluation of biliary complication after liver transplantation. Ann. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 2021, 25, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratcliffe, G.E.; Kirkpatrick, I.D.; Sahni, V.A.; Greenberg, H.M.; Henderson, B.; Radulovic, D.; Mottola, J.C. Detection and localization of bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography: Retrospective study of 16 patients. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2014, 38, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cieszanowski, A.; Stadnik, A.; Lezak, A.; Maj, E.; Zieniewicz, K.; Rowinska-Berman, K.; Grudziński, I.; Krawczyk, M.; Rowiński, O. Detection of active bile leak with Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR cholangiography: Comparison of 20–25 min delayed and 60–180 min delayed images. Eur. J. Radiol. 2013, 82, 2176–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kul, M.M.; Erden, A.; Atman, E.D. Diagnostic value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography in non-invasive detection of postoperative bile leakage. BJR 2017, 90, 20160847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellanos, A.A.; Granados, J.F.M.; Fernandez, J.E.; Muñoz, I.G.; Tarradas, F.D.A.T. Early phase detection of bile leak after hepatobiliary surgery: Value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography. Abdom. Radiol. 2012, 37, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kantarcı, M.; Pirimoglu, B.; Karabulut, N.; Bayraktutan, U.; Ogul, H.; Ozturk, G.; Aydinli, B.; Kizrak, Y.; Eren, S.; Yilmaz, S. Non-invasive detection of biliary leaks using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography: Comparison with T2-weighted MR cholangiography. Eur. Radiol. 2013, 23, 2713–2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koch, M.; Garden, O.J.; Padbury, R.; Rahbari, N.N.; Adam, R.; Capussotti, L.; Fan, S.T.; Yokoyama, Y.; Crawford, M.; Makuuchi, M.; et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 2011, 149, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull. World Health Organ. 2007, 85, 867–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McAllister, J.D.; D’Altorio, R.A.; Rao, V. CT findings after uncomplicated and complicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Semin. Ultrasound CT MR 1993, 14, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mergener, K.; Strobel, J.C.; Suhocki, P.; Jowell, P.S.; Enns, R.A.; Branch, M.; Baillie, J. The role of ERCP in diagnosis and management of accessory bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1999, 50, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, A.S.; Jenniskens, S.; Martens, J.M.; Rutten, M.J.C.M.; Yo, L.S.F.; van Strijen, M.J.L.; Drenth, J.P.H.; Siersema, P.D.; van Geenen, E.J.M. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage, a multicenter observational study. Abdom. Radiol. 2022, 47, 3338–3344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, N.K.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, S.H.; Kang, D.H.; Kim, G.H.; Seo, H.I. Biliary MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and its clinical applications. Radiographics 2009, 29, 1707–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bollow, M.; Taupitz, M.; Hamm, B.; Staks, T.; Wolf, K.J.; Weinmann, H.J. Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA as a hepatobiliary contrast agent for use in MR cholangiography: Results of an in vivo phase-I clinical evaluation. Eur. Radiol. 1997, 7, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelico, M.; Nardi, A.; Romagnoli, R.; Marianelli, T.; Corradini, S.G.; Tandoi, F.; Gavrila, C.; Salizzoni, M.; Pinna, A.D.; Cillo, U.; et al. Liver Match Study Investigators. A Bayesian methodology to improve prediction of early graft loss after liver transplantation derived from the liver match study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2014, 46, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschirch, F.T.C.; Struwe, A.; Petrowsky, H.; Kakales, I.; Marincek, B.; Weishaupt, D. Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA in patients with liver cirrhosis: Visualization of the biliary ducts in comparison with patients with normal liver parenchyma. Eur. Radiol. 2008, 18, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, P.; Sileri, P.; Gentileschi, P.; Sica, G.S.; Forlini, A.; Stolfi, V.M.; De Majo, A.; Coscarella, G.; Canale, S.; Gaspari, A.L. Percutaneous liver biopsy using an ultrasound-guided subcostal route. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2001, 46, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fiocca, F.; Salvatori, F.M.; Fanelli, F.; Bruni, A.; Ceci, V.; Corona, M.; Donatelli, G. Complete transection of the main bile duct: Minimally invasive treatment with an endoscopic-radiologic rendezvous. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 74, 1393–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gandini, R.; Konda, D.; Tisone, G.; Pipitone, V.; Anselmo, A.; Simonetti, G. Bronchobiliary fistula treated by self-expanding ePTFE-covered nitinol stent-graft. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2005, 28, 828–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iaria, G.; Anselmo, A.; De Luca, L.; Manuelli, M.; Lucchesi, C.; Tariciotti, L.; Monaco, A.; Sforza, D.; Nigro, F.; Abruzzese, E.; et al. Conversion to rapamycin immunosuppression for malignancy after kidney transplantation: Case reports. Transpl. Proc. 2007, 39, 2036–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anselmo, A.; Iaria, G.; Pellicciaro, M.; Sforza, D.; Parente, A.; Campisi, A.; Cacciatore, C.; Calafiore, E.; Pisani, G.; Tisone, G. Native Nephrectomy in Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Evaluated for Kidney Transplantation. Transpl. Proc. 2019, 51, 2914–2916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bornman, P.C.; Van Beljon, J.I.; Krige, J. Management of cholangitis. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 2003, 10, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coelho-Prabhu, N.; Baron, T.H. Assessment of need for repeat ERCP during biliary stent removal after clinical resolution of postcholecystectomy bile leak. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 105, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mosconi, C.; Calandri, M.; Mirarchi, M.; Vara, G.; Breatta, A.D.; Cappelli, A.; Brandi, N.; Paccapelo, A.; De Benedittis, C.; Ricci, C.; et al. Percutaneous management of postoperative Bile leak after hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: A multi-center experience. HPB 2021, 23, 1518–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Patient | Age | Gender | Index Surgical Procedure | BL Onset from Index Surgery (Days) | Serum Bilirubin Levels at the Time of BL Onset (mg/dL) | Drainage Output at the Time of Procedure (mL/Day) | BL at Ce-MRCP | BL at PCT/ERCP | BL Site |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 55 | M | LT | 11 | 1.1 | 500 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
2 | 84 | M | LC | 1 | 3.2 | 200 | Yes | Yes | RHD aberrant |
3 | 40 | F | Right hepatectomy | 2 | 0.6 | 100 | Yes | Yes | LHD |
4 | 70 | M | LC | 1 | 1.5 | 600 | Yes | Yes | CD |
5 | 39 | F | LT | 17 | 0.7 | 500 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
6 | 70 | M | Partial liver resection | 3 | 0.6 | 100 | Yes | Yes | S-VII HD |
7 | 72 | M | Left hepatectomy | 4 | 0.4 | 800 | Yes | Yes | RPHD |
8 | 64 | F | Left hepatectomy | 2 | 2.5 | 250 | Yes | Yes | RPHD |
9 | 66 | F | LT | 8 | 4.1 | 600 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
10 | 61 | M | Partial liver resection | 3 | 8.9 | 400 | No | Yes | S-IV HD |
11 | 68 | M | Right hepatectomy | 2 | 10 | 250 | No | Yes | LHD |
12 | 76 | M | LC | 5 | 6.7 | 500 | No | Yes | CBD |
13 | 52 | F | PD | 2 | 1.1 | 540 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
14 | 55 | M | PD | 7 | 0.9 | 650 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
15 | 56 | F | Right hepatectomy | 1 | 0.6 | 260 | Yes | Yes | RAHD |
16 | 76 | M | Right hepatectomy | 2 | 14 | 800 | No | Yes | LHD |
17 | 59 | M | LT | 12 | 8.5 | 650 | No | Yes | CBD |
18 | 72 | F | PD | 4 | 0.7 | 350 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
19 | 59 | M | PD | 2 | 0.6 | 600 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
20 | 75 | F | LC | 1 | 2.1 | 800 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
22 | 79 | M | LC | 2 | 1.1 | 450 | Yes | Yes | CD |
22 | 65 | F | PD | 2 | 1.6 | 200 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
23 | 67 | F | Left hepatectomy | 3 | 6.5 | 540 | No | Yes | LHD |
24 | 66 | M | LT | 12 | 0.5 | 430 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
25 | 56 | M | LT | 6 | 1.3 | 250 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
26 | 49 | M | LT | 11 | 38.5 | 650 | No | Yes | CBD |
27 | 55 | F | LT | 13 | 4 | 350 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
28 | 49 | M | LT | 16 | 7.2 | 340 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
29 | 59 | M | LT | 12 | 40.9 | 250 | No | Yes | CBD |
30 | 62 | F | LT | 11 | 6 | 250 | No | Yes | CBD |
31 | 58 | M | LT | 15 | 2 | 340 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
32 | 25 | M | LT | 18 | 11.4 | 560 | No | Yes | CBD |
33 | 61 | M | LT | 12 | 0.9 | 800 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
34 | 55 | M | LC | 2 | 1.9 | 1000 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
35 | 43 | M | LT | 13 | 10.3 | 800 | No | Yes | CBD |
36 | 82 | M | Left hepatectomy | 2 | 0.7 | 550 | Yes | Yes | LHD |
37 | 34 | F | LC | 1 | 1.9 | 280 | Yes | Yes | CBD |
38 | 53 | M | LC | 2 | 0.7 | 150 | Yes | Yes | CD |
39 | 75 | M | LC | 2 | 11.5 | 560 | No | Yes | RHD |
Total | 60.6 ± 13 | M 67% F 33% | LT 15/39 (38%) Liver resection 10/39 (26%) LC 9/39 (23%) PD 5/39 (13%) | 6.3 ± 5.4 | 5.5 ± 9 | 446 ± 224 | Yes 69% | Yes 100% | CBD 24/39 61.5% LHD 5/39 12.8% CD 3/39 7.7% RPHD 2/39 5.1% Others 5/39 12.8% |
Ce-MRCP 10/16 62.5% | ERCP 16/16 100% |
Ce-MRCP 17/23 74% | PTC 23/23 100% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Argirò, R.; Sensi, B.; Siragusa, L.; Bellini, L.; Conte, L.E.; Riccetti, C.; Del Vecchio Blanco, G.; Troncone, E.; Floris, R.; Salavracos, M.; et al. Liver-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (Ce-MRCP) in Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Biliary Leakage. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101681
Argirò R, Sensi B, Siragusa L, Bellini L, Conte LE, Riccetti C, Del Vecchio Blanco G, Troncone E, Floris R, Salavracos M, et al. Liver-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (Ce-MRCP) in Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Biliary Leakage. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(10):1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101681
Chicago/Turabian StyleArgirò, Renato, Bruno Sensi, Leandro Siragusa, Luigi Bellini, Luigi Edoardo Conte, Camilla Riccetti, Giovanna Del Vecchio Blanco, Edoardo Troncone, Roberto Floris, Mike Salavracos, and et al. 2023. "Liver-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (Ce-MRCP) in Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Biliary Leakage" Diagnostics 13, no. 10: 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101681
APA StyleArgirò, R., Sensi, B., Siragusa, L., Bellini, L., Conte, L. E., Riccetti, C., Del Vecchio Blanco, G., Troncone, E., Floris, R., Salavracos, M., Tisone, G., & Anselmo, A. (2023). Liver-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (Ce-MRCP) in Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Iatrogenic Biliary Leakage. Diagnostics, 13(10), 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13101681