Percutaneous transhepatic bilioenteric neoanastomosis: A novel approach for managing bile duct injuries following choledochal cyst resection in patients with anatomical variations of the biliary tree: A case study.

Bile duct injuries are rare complications of hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery, leading to severe complications if not timely diagnosed and treated, with surgery traditionally being the primary treatment option. However, percutaneous transhepatic or endoscopic interventions have recently gained widespread use. We present a case study of a patient with variant biliary anatomy, who suffered biliary tract injury postcholedochal cyst resection and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy; successfully treated with percutaneous transhepatic bilioenteric neoanastomosis, guided by ultrasound and digital subtraction angiography (DSA).

Comparison of gadoxetic acid to gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors.

PURPOSE: To compare MRI using gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) vs. gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) for the assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors. METHODS: 76 potential liver donors (39 M/37 F, mean 38 years) who underwent 1.5T MRI using Gd-BOPTA (n = 37) or Gd-EOB-DTPA (n = 39) were retrospectively evaluated. T2 cholangiogram (T2 MRC) and delayed hepatobiliary phase (HBP) T1 cholangiogram (T1 MRC) (performed during HBP 20 min after injection of Gd-EOB-DTPA and 1-2 h after Gd-BOPTA injection) were obtained in addition to MR angiogram/venogram. Two independent observers evaluated image quality (IQ) and conspicuity scores (CS) of the biliary system. Biliary anatomy was assessed in 3 reading sessions (T2 MRC, T1 MRC, and combined T2/T1 MRC). Reference standard consisted of consensus reading of two separate observers of all image sets, clinical/surgical information and intraoperative cholangiogram when available. Datasets were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or Chi-squared test. RESULTS: There was no difference in IQ for T1 MRC using either contrast agent or T2 MRC vs. T1 MRC for both observers (all p values >0.07). There was superior CS for T2 MRC vs. Gd-BOPTA T1 MRC for both observers and T2 MRC vs. Gd-EOB for one observer (p < 0.001). No difference was found for biliary variant detection for T1 MRC (with either contrast agent) vs. T2 MRC. Combined T2/T1 MRC demonstrated improved sensitivity for biliary variant detection using Gd-BOPTA for both observers (p < 0.004) and Gd-EOB-DTPA for one observer (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Equivalent image quality was found for T1 MRC obtained with Gd-BOPTA or Gd-EOB-DTPA and T2 MRC. T1 MRC is equivalent to T2 MRC for detection of variant biliary anatomy, and the combination of sequences may have added value.