Article Sidebar
Views PDF: 273
Anatomical study of celiac artery and hepatic arterial system in adults: an analysis using multidectector computed tomography
Main Article Content
Abstract
SUMMARY
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the anatomical chacracteristics of celiac artery (CA) and hepatic arterial system (HAS) in
Vietnamese adults by using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).
Materials and Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional and predominantly descriptive study based on the analysis of arterial phase
contrast-enhanced CT images of 600 patients between July 2016 and November 2016, at the Radiology Department, University Medical
Center, Ho Chi Minh City (UMC HCMC).
Results: The CA arises variably from the aorta at the level between lower 1/3 11th thoracic and upper 1/3 2nd lumbar vertebrae with more
than 70% at the level of lower 1/3 12th thoracic, T12 – L1 junction and upper 1/3 1st lumbar vertebra. The celiac trunk anatomy was normal
(Uflacker type 1) in 87.7% of cases and variation of CA was observed in 12.3% with the form of hepatosplenic trunk (Uflacker type 2) was the
most common type (4.0%). Ambiguous celiac axis anatomy was seen in 3.1% of patients. CHA originated from celiac axis in 92.7% of cases,
followed by SMA (4.0%) and aorta (1.2%). The HAS was described as normal (Michels type 1) in 73% of patients and several variations were
noted in 23%. The most common variation was Michels type 2 (7.0%), followed by type 3 (5.7%), type 9 (3.8%) and others. Type 10 was not observed in our series. We have noted additional,
unclassified variations in 19 cases (3.2%). Mean length and diameter of CA were 28.29 ± 6.68mm and 7.33 ± 1.15mm. Mean distance between
CA and SMA was 20.51 ± 4.17mm. Normal measures of CA in women were smaller than in men (p<0.05). Mean length and diameter of CHA
were 32.43 ± 8.49mm and 5.40 ± 1.04mm. Mean diameter of PHA was 4.45 ± 0.87mm. Normal
measures of hepatic artery in women were smaller than in men (p<0.05). In the presence of anatomical variations, there was a decrease in the arterial diameters of the CA and HAS, decrease in the CA length, but increase in CHA length (p<0.05). In addition, a significant correlation was observed between CA diameter and length; CA diameter and distance to SMA; CHA diameter and length; and CHA diameter and PHA diameter (p<0.05).
Conclusion: The knowledge of anatomic characteristics of the celiac artery and hepatic arterial system, including the most common variations of these arteries in population may assist in the selection of treatmen options và surgical planning. As a reliable non invasive method, MDCT can accurately provide detailed information of celiac artery and hepatic arterial system.
Article Details
Keywords
Anatomical variations, Celiac artery (CA), Hepatic arterial system (HAS), Common hepatic artery (CHA), Proper hepatic artery (PHA), Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT)
References
1. Lê Văn Cường (1994), “Các dạng động mạch gan ở người Việt Nam”, Hình thái học. 4 (1), tr. 4-6.
2. Lê Văn Cường (2012), Các dạng và kích thước động mạch ở người Việt Nam, Nhà xuất bản Y học, TpHCM, tr. 102 - 148.
3. Trần Sinh Vương (2012), “Nghiên cứu về nguyên ủy, các dạng phân nhánh của động mạch gan ở người Việt Nam trưởng thành”, Tạp chí Y học thực hành. 817 (4), tr. 73 - 75.
4. Araujo Neto S. A. et al. (2016), “Multidetector computed tomography angiography of the celiac trunk and hepatic arterial system: normal anatomy and main variants”, Radiol Bras. 49 (1), pp. 49-52..
5. Araujo Neto S. A. et al. (2015), “Anatomical variations of the celiac trunk and hepatic arterial system: an analysis using multidetector computed tomography angiography”, Radiol Bras. 48 (6), pp. 358-362..
6. Garima Sehgala, A.K. Srivastavab, P.K. Sharmac, Navneet Kumarc, Ragini Singhd, et al. (2013), “Morphometry of the celiac trunk: a multidetector computed tomographic angiographic study”, Journal of the Anatomical Society of India. 62, pp. 23 - 27..
7. Hafezji H. M. et al. (2016), “A Study of Morphometric Variations of Celiac Trunk Using Computed Tomographic
Angiography”, Indian Journal of Clinical Anatomy and Physiology 2016. 3, pp. 86-90..
8. Iezzi R. et al. (2008), “Multidetector-row CT angiographic imaging of the celiac trunk: anatomy and normal variants”, Surg Radiol Anat. 30 (4), pp. 303-310..
9. Koops A. et al. (2004), “Anatomic variations of the hepatic arteries in 604 selective celiac and superior mesenteric angiographies”, Surg Radiol Anat. 26 (3), pp. 239-244..
10. Mugunthan N. et al. (2016), “Variations in the Origin and Course of Right Hepatic Artery and its Surgical Significance”, J Clin Diagn Res. 10 (9), pp. Ac01-ac04..
11. Panagouli E. et al. (2011), “A morphometric study concerning the branching points of the main arteries in
humans: relationships and correlations”, Ann Anat. 193 (2), pp. 86-99.
12. Pinal-Garcia D. F. et al. (2018), “The Celiac Trunk and Its Anatomical Variations: A Cadaveric Study”, J Clin Med Res. 10 (4), pp. 321-329..
13. Song S. Y. et al. (2010), “Celiac axis and common hepatic artery variations in 5002 patients: systematic analysis with spiral CT and DSA”, Radiology. 255 (1), pp. 278-288..
14. Sureka B. et al. (2013), “Variations of celiac axis, common hepatic artery and its branches in 600 patients”, Indian J Radiol Imaging. 23 (3), pp. 223-233..
15. Thangarajah A. et al. (2016), “Celiac Axis, Common Hepatic and Hepatic Artery Variants as Evidenced on MDCT Angiography in South Indian Population”, J Clin Diagn Res. 10 (1), pp. Tc01-05..
16. Ugurel M. S. et al. (2010), “Anatomical variations of hepatic arterial system, coeliac trunk and renal arteries: an analysis with multidetector CT angiography”, Br J Radiol. 83 (992), pp. 661-667..
17. Farghadani M. et al. (2016), “Anatomical variation of celiac axis, superior mesenteric artery, and hepatic artery: Evaluation with multidetector computed tomography angiography”, Journal of Research in Medical Sciences : The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 21, pp. 129..
18. Osman A. M. et al. (2016), “Celiac trunk and hepatic artery variants: A retrospective preliminary MSCT report among Egyptian patients”, The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 47 (4), pp. 1451-1458..