Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of different MRCP techniques for the depiction of biliary complications after liver transplantation

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Biliary strictures after liver transplantation are common. We aimed to compare different magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) sequences with regard to their diagnostic accuracy in depicting anastomotic stenoses (AST), ischaemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL) and cholelithiasis.

Methods

In patients with clinically suspected biliary obstruction after liver transplantation, MRCP was performed at 1.5 T using two-dimensional (2D) single-shot RARE, 2D T2-weighted (T2w) HASTE, 2D TrueFISP and 3D T2w TSE RESTORE sequences. The presence and localisation of lesions were assessed for each sequence independently and all sequences together. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) served as the “gold standard”.

Results

Biliary strictures were detected with a sensitivity of 96% by MRCP and most accurately depicted when all sequences were analysed together. AST was visualised with highest sensitivity on TrueFISP and 3D T2w TSE sequences (79%). For ITBL highest sensitivity was found with the HASTE sequence (81%). Highest sensitivity for filling defects was revealed by the 3D T2w TSE sequence (54%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve/area under the curve (AUC) analysis revealed the best results for the 3D T2w TSE sequence.

Conclusion

Our results underline the value of different MRCP sequence types for the depiction of biliary lesions. A clinical protocol consisting of different sequences may be helpful depending on the clinical question and the likely underlying abnormality.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verdonk RC, Buis CI, Porte RJ, Haagsma EB (2006) Biliary complications after liver transplantation: a review. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl:89–101

  2. Pascher A, Neuhaus P (2005) Bile duct complications after liver transplantation. Transpl Int 18:627–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gopal DV, Pfau PR, Lucey MR (2003) Endoscopic management of biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 6:509–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu ZJ, Rao W, Sun JS, Cai JZ, Deng YL, Zheng H, Zhang YM, Jiang WT, Zhang JJ, Gao W, Shen ZY (2008) Liver retransplantation for ischemic-type biliary lesions after orthotopic liver transplantation: a clinical report of 66 cases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 7:471–475

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bilbao MK, Dotter CT, Lee TG, Katon RM (1976) Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A study of 10,000 cases. Gastroenterology 70:314–320

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW (1999) MR cholangiography: technical advances and clinical applications. Radiographics 19:25–41 discussion 41–24

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hintze RE, Abou-Rebyeh H, Adler A, Veltzke W, Langrehr J, Wiedenmann B, Neuhaus P (1999) [Endoscopic therapy of ischemia-type biliary lesions in patients following orthotopic liver transplantation]. Z Gastroenterol 37:13–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W, Abou-Rebyeh H, Felix R, Neuhaus P (1997) Endoscopic management of biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology 44:258–262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Imanieh MH, Erjaee A, Dehghani SM, Bahador A, Malek-Hosseini SA (2009) Early postoperative complications of pediatric liver transplantation. Indian Pediatr 46:1088–1090. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2003.11.029

    Google Scholar 

  10. Iwamoto H, Hama K, Nakamura Y, Osamu K, Yokoyama T, Kihara Y, Ashizawa T, Niido T, Matsuno N, Nagao T (2008) Biliary complications after 52 adult living donor liver transplantations: a single-center experience. Transplant Proc 40:2539–2541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wojcicki M, Milkiewicz P, Silva M (2008) Biliary tract complications after liver transplantation: a review. Dig Surg 25:245–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fulcher AS, Turner MA (1999) Orthotopic liver transplantation: evaluation with MR cholangiography. Radiology 211:715–722

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaltenthaler E, Walters S, Chilcott J, Blakeborough A, Vergel Y, Thomas S (2006) MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review. BMC Med Imaging 6:9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lomas DJ, Bearcroft PW, Gimson AE (1999) MR cholangiopancreatography: prospective comparison of a breath-hold 2D projection technique with diagnostic ERCP. Eur Radiol 9:1411–1417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor AC, Little AF, Hennessy OF, Banting SW, Smith PJ, Desmond PV (2002) Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree. Gastrointest Endosc 55:17–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nandalur KR, Hussain HK, Weadock WJ, Wamsteker EJ, Johnson TD, Khan AS, D’Amico AR, Ford MK, Nandalur SR, Chenevert TL (2008) Possible biliary disease: diagnostic performance of high-spatial-resolution isotropic 3D T2-weighted MRCP. Radiology 249:883–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park DH, Kim MH, Lee SS, Lee SK, Kim KP, Han JM, Kim SY, Song MH, Seo DW, Kim AY, Kim TK, Min YI (2004) Accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for locating hepatolithiasis and detecting accompanying biliary strictures. Endoscopy 36:987–992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A, Erdem Z, Karademir B, Aydemir S, Gundogdu S (2008) MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of biliary pathologies: review of current literature. J Dig Dis 9:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt S, Chevallier P, Novellas S, Gelsi E, Vanbiervliet G, Tran A, Schnyder P, Bruneton JN (2007) Choledocholithiasis: repetitive thick-slab single-shot projection magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography versus endoscopic ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 17:241–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McMahon CJ (2008) The relative roles of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis of common bile duct calculi: a critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging 33:6–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Franco J (2005) Biliary complications in liver transplant recipients. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 7:160–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gor NV, Levy RM, Ahn J, Kogan D, Dodson SF, Cohen SM (2008) Biliary cast syndrome following liver transplantation: Predictive factors and clinical outcomes. Liver Transpl 14:1466–1472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Kim SH, Lee JY, Choi JY, Kim SJ, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Choi BI (2007) Contrast-enhanced MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography for the evaluation of patients with biliary strictures: differentiation of malignant from benign bile duct strictures. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:304–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ichikawa T, Nitatori T, Hachiya J, Mizutani Y (1996) Breath-held MR cholangiopancreatography with half-averaged single shot hybrid rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement sequence: comparison of fast GRE and SE sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:798–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Irie H, Honda H, Tajima T, Kuroiwa T, Yoshimitsu K, Makisumi K, Masuda K (1998) Optimal MR cholangiopancreatographic sequence and its clinical application. Radiology 206:379–387

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reinhold C, Bret PM (1996) Current status of MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1285–1295

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    Sonja Kinner, Susanne C. Ladd & Thomas C. Lauenstein

  2. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Alexander Dechêne, Thomas Zöpf, Evelin Maldonado de Dechêne & Guido Gerken

Authors
  1. Sonja Kinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Dechêne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne C. Ladd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Zöpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evelin Maldonado de Dechêne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guido Gerken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas C. Lauenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Kinner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kinner, S., Dechêne, A., Ladd, S.C. et al. Comparison of different MRCP techniques for the depiction of biliary complications after liver transplantation. Eur Radiol 20, 1749–1756 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1714-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1714-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation