To evaluate changes in the common duct diameter on sonography over time in patients with and without cholecystectomy.We retrospectively evaluated the common duct diameter, central biliary dilatation, and interval change in 1079 patients who underwent sonography at least 2 years apart over a 6-year period. A board-certified radiologist, blinded to clinical and laboratory data, measured the duct diameter. A total of 893 patients (568 female and 325 male) were divided into 3 groups: group 1, remote cholecystectomy before sonography (mean, 9.7 years before sonography; n = 117); group 2, interval cholecystectomy between the first and second sonographic examinations (n = 56); and group 3, no cholecystectomy (n = 720). All groups were stratified by age, and group 3 was also stratified by the absence (n = 528) or presence (n=192) of gallstones.Duct diameters at baseline and follow-up averaged 4.5 and 5.2, 3.6 and 4.9, and 3.5 and 3.9 mm in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Group 1 ducts were larger at baseline than in the other groups (P < .001). At follow-up, group 2 ducts showed a greater interval diameter increase than the other groups (P < .001). In a subanalysis of each group based on age, there was a mild increase in duct size with increasing age, although not clinically significant and within normal limits. In group 3 patients who never had gallstones, there was a significant small increase in duct size over decades (P < .001). The baseline duct sizes for patients with gallstones were not significantly different from those who never had gallstones (P = .15).Patients with remote cholecystectomy have larger common duct diameters than those with no or interval cholecystectomy. Most asymptomatic patients with or without cholecystectomy have a normal common duct diameter.
To evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to depict solid debris within pancreatic collections prior to intervention and to help assess drainability, as well as to compare MR findings with those obtained at computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US).Nineteen collections in 18 patients were evaluated with MR imaging, CT, and US prior to drainage. Prospective, blinded interpretations of imaging studies by three independent readers (each interpreted all the images obtained with only one modality) evaluated collection characteristics (debris, consistency, septation, wall thickness, and irregularity) and predicted drainability. Findings were compared with clinical diagnosis and clinical outcome of drainage.MR imaging and CT depicted all collections; US failed to depict two collections. In nine patients with subacute necrotic collections, solid debris was seen in eight (89%) at MR imaging, in two (22%) at CT, and in eight (89%) at US. In seven patients with pseudocysts, debris was seen in two (28%) at MR imaging and in none at CT, as well as in six (100%) of six at US. A collection was defined as "not drainable" on the basis of the depiction of solid necrotic debris more than 1 cm in diameter. With this definition, statistically significant differences between sensitivity and specificity values, respectively, were found for the prediction of actual drainability: MR imaging, 100% and 100%; CT, 25% and 100%; US, 88% and 54%.Predrainage MR imaging should be performed in patients with subacute pancreatic collections to avoid infectious complications from unrecognized necrotic debris that cannot be removed with use of standard pseudocyst drainage techniques.
