Practical approach for the diagnosis of biliary atresia on imaging, part 2: magnetic resonance cholecystopancreatography, hepatobiliary scintigraphy, percutaneous cholecysto-cholangiography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, percutaneous liver biopsy, risk scores and decisional flowchart.

We aim to present a practical approach to imaging in suspected biliary atresia, an inflammatory cholangiopathy of infancy resulting in progressive fibrosis and obliteration of extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts. Left untreated or with failure of the Kasai procedure, biliary atresia progresses to biliary cirrhosis, end-stage liver failure and death within the first years of life. Differentiating biliary atresia from other nonsurgical causes of neonatal cholestasis is difficult as there is no single method for diagnosing biliary atresia and clinical, laboratory and imaging features of this disease overlap with those of other causes of neonatal cholestasis. In this second part, we discuss the roles of magnetic resonance (MR) cholecystopancreatography, hepatobiliary scintigraphy, percutaneous biopsy and percutaneous cholecysto-cholangiography. Among imaging techniques, ultrasound (US) signs have a high specificity, although a normal US examination does not rule out biliary atresia. Other imaging techniques with direct opacification of the biliary tree combined with percutaneous liver biopsy have roles in equivocal cases. MR cholecystopancreatography and hepatobiliary scintigraphy are not useful for the diagnosis of biliary atresia. We propose a decisional flowchart for biliary atresia diagnosis based on US signs, including elastography, percutaneous cholecysto-cholangiography or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and liver biopsy.

Revisiting the radiographic assessment of osteoporosis-Osteopenia in children 0-2 years of age. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Imaging for osteoporosis has two major aims, first, to identify the presence of low bone mass (osteopenia), and second, to quantify bone mass using semiquantitative (conventional radiography) or quantitative (densitometry) methods. In young children, densitometry is hampered by the lack of reference values, and high-quality radiographs still play a role although the evaluation of osteopenia as a marker for osteoporosis is subjective and based on personal experience. Medical experts questioned in court over child abuse, often refer to the literature and state that 20-40% loss of bone mass is warranted before osteopenia becomes evident on radiographs. In our systematic review, we aimed at identifying evidence underpinning this statement. A secondary outcome was identifying normal references for cortical thickness of the skeleton in infants born term, < 2 years of age. METHODS: We undertook systematic searches in Medline, Embase and Svemed+, covering 1946-2020. Unpublished material was searched in Clinical trials and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Both relevant subject headings and free text words were used for the following concepts: osteoporosis or osteopenia, radiography, children up to 6 years. RESULTS: A total 5592 publications were identified, of which none met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome; the degree of bone loss warranted before osteopenia becomes visible radiographically. As for the secondary outcome, 21 studies were identified. None of the studies was true population based and none covered the pre-defined age range from 0-2 years. However, four studies of which three having a crossectional and one a longitudinal design, included newborns while one study included children 0-2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an extensive literature search, we did not find any studies supporting the assumption that a 20-40% bone loss is required before osteopenia becomes visible on radiographs. Reference values for cortical thickness were sparse. Further studies addressing this important topic are warranted.

Intracavitary contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in children: review with procedural recommendations and clinical applications from the European Society of Paediatric Radiology abdominal imaging task force.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (US) has become an important supplementary tool in many clinical applications in children. Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography and intravenous US contrast agents have proved useful in routine clinical practice. Other applications of intracavitary contrast-enhanced US, particularly in children, have not been widely investigated but could serve as a practical and radiation-free problem-solver in several clinical settings. Intracavitary contrast-enhanced US is a real-time imaging modality similar to fluoroscopy with iodinated contrast agent. The US contrast agent solution is administered into physiological or non-physiological body cavities. There is no definitive list of established indications for intracavitary US contrast agent application. However, intracavitary contrast-enhanced US can be used for many clinical applications. It offers excellent real-time spatial resolution and allows for a more accurate delineation of the cavity anatomy, including the internal architecture of complex collections and possible communications within the cavity or with the surrounding structures through fistulous tracts. It can provide valuable information related to the insertion of catheters and tubes, and identify related complications such as confirming the position and patency of a catheter and identifying causes for drainage dysfunction or leakage. Patency of the ureter and biliary ducts can be evaluated, too. US contrast agent solution can be administered orally or a via nasogastric tube, or as an enema to evaluate the gastrointestinal tract. In this review we present potential clinical applications and procedural and dose recommendations regarding intracavitary contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.