↓ Skip to main content

Coronal 2D MR cholangiography overestimates the length of the right hepatic duct in liver transplantation donors

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Coronal 2D MR cholangiography overestimates the length of the right hepatic duct in liver transplantation donors
Published in
European Radiology, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00330-016-4572-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bohyun Kim, Kyoung Won Kim, So Yeon Kim, So Hyun Park, Jeongjin Lee, Gi Won Song, Dong-Hwan Jung, Tae-Yong Ha, Sung Gyu Lee

Abstract

To compare the length of the right hepatic duct (RHD) measured on rotatory coronal 2D MR cholangiography (MRC), rotatory axial 2D MRC, and reconstructed 3D MRC. Sixty-seven donors underwent coronal and axial 2D projection MRC and 3D MRC. RHD length was measured and categorized as ultrashort (≤1 mm), short (>1-14 mm), and long (>14 mm). The measured length, frequency of overestimation, and the degree of underestimation between two 2D MRC sets were compared to 3D MRC. The length of the RHD from 3D MRC, coronal 2D MRC, and axial 2D MRC showed significant difference (p < 0.05). RHD was frequently overestimated on the coronal than on axial 2D MRC (61.2 % vs. 9 %; p < .0001). On coronal 2D MRC, four (6 %) with short RHD and one (1.5 %) with ultrashort RHD were over-categorized as long RHD. On axial 2D MRC, overestimation was mostly <1 mm (83.3 %), none exceeding 3 mm or over-categorized. The degree of underestimation between the two projection planes was comparable. Coronal 2D MRC overestimates the RHD in liver donors. We suggest adding axial 2D MRC to conventional coronal 2D MRC in the preoperative workup protocol for living liver donors to avoid unexpected confrontation with multiple ductal openings when harvesting the graft. • In living liver donors, RHD length influences the number of ductal openings. • Coronal 2D MRC overestimates the RHD length than does axial 2D MRC. • Adding axial 2D MRC to coronal 2D MRC may prevent overestimating RHD length.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Chemistry 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,446,373
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#3,349
of 4,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,495
of 336,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#35
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,168 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.