A departmental survey of personal methodology in the measurement of bile duct diameter was carried out by means of a representative diagram of a typical bile duct image configuration. The results revealed considerable differences in measurement practice, and factors that may explain the patterns of interobserver variation, among 20 respondents in this task, were postulated. There was considerable scope for error, by a factor of three times between the smallest and largest diameter selected noted within current practice variation. This reflects similar disparity found in the literature. Within the setting of the development of current therapeutic strategies, there may be a need for confirmation and/or re-establishment of contemporary normal ranges for biliary tree diameter.
A study of reasonable magnitude would be required to clarify the many and complex common and special causes of variation in ultrasonic evaluation outlined towards enhancing the utility of this useful and hitherto important ultrasonic sign.
PengWK, SheikhZ, Paterson-BrownS.Role of liver function tests in predicting common bile duct stones in acute calculous cholecystitis. Br J Surg2005; 92: 1241–7.
15.
YangMH, ChenTH, WangSE.Biochemical predictors of the absence of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc2008; 22: 1620–4.
16.
CollinsC, MaguireM, IrelandA.A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Natural history of cholelithiasis revisited. Ann Surg2004; 239: 28–33.
17.
VargheseJC, LiddellRP, FarrellMA.The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol1999; 54: 604–14.
18.
VargheseJ, FarrellM, CourtneyG.Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract disease. Clin Radiol1999; 54: 513–20.
19.
Van EppsK, ReganF.MR cholangiopancreatography using HASTE sequences. Clin Radiol1999; 54: 588–94.
20.
VargheseJC, LiddellRP, FarrellMA.Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol2000; 55: 25–35.
21.
MorrinMM, FarrellRJ, McEnteeG.MR cholangiopancreatography of pancreaticobiliary diseases: comparison of single-shot RARE and multislice HASTE sequences. Clin Radiol2000; 55: 866–73.
22.
RiordanRD, KhonsariM, JeffriesJ.Pineapple juice as a negative oral contrast agent in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a preliminary evaluation. Br J Radiol2004; 77: 991–9.
23.
BasaranogluM, BalciNC, KlörHU.Anomalous pancreaticobiliary junction (APBJ) with the drainage of the uncinate process into the minor papilla: demonstration by MRI. Br J Radiol2005; 78: 655–8.
24.
ShanmugamV, BeattieGC, YuleSR.Is magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging?Br J Radiol2005; 78: 888–93.
BrownLM, RogersSJ, CelloJP.Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones. J Am Coll Surg2011; 212: 1049–1060.e7. Epub 2011 Mar 27. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1072751511001591
30.
ShanserJD, KorobkinM, GoldbergHI.Computed tomographic diagnosis of obstructive jaundice in the absence of intrahepatic ductal dilatation. AJR1978; 131: 389–92.
31.
MuellerPR, FerrucciJT, SimeoneJF.Post cholecystectomy Bile duct Dilatation: Myth or Reality. AJR1981; 136: 355–8.
32.
MahourGH, WakimKG, FerrisDO.The common bile duct after cholecystectomy: comparison of common bile ducts in patients who have intact biliary systems with those in patients who have undergone cholecystectomy. Ann Surg1967; 166: 964–7.
33.
FengB, SongQ.Does the common bile duct dilate after cholecystectomy? Sonographic evaluation in 234 patients. AJR1994; 165: 859–61.
34.
MajeedAW, RossB, JohnstonAG.Common duct diameter as an independent predictor of choledocholithiasis: is it useful?Clin Radiol1999; 54: 170–2.
35.
TerhaarOA, AbbasS, ThorntonFJ.Imaging patients with ‘post-cholecystectomy syndrome': an algorithmic approach. Clin Radiol2005; 60: 78–84.
36.
HorrowMM.Ultrasound of the extrahepatic bile duct: issues of size. Ultrasound Q2010; 26: 67–74.
37.
SamuelE.The radiological anatomy of the biliary passages with especial reference to the post-cholecystectomy syndrome: Hunterian Lecture delivered 1956 at the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Ann Roy Coll Surg Engl1957; 20: 157–76.
38.
RezaeeA, NarouieB, Ghasemi-RadM.Is opioid addiction a sufficient predicting factor for common bile duct dilatation? A sonographic study. J Diagn Med Sonogr2010; 26: 137–42.
39.
GiromettiR, BrondaniG, CereserL.Post-cholecystectomy syndrome: spectrum of biliary findings at magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Br J Radiol2010; 83: 351–61.
HorrowMM, HorrowJC, NiakosariA.Is age associated with size of adult extrahepatic bile duct: sonographic study. Radiology2001; 221: 411–4.
42.
PerretRS, SloopGD, BorneJA.Common bile duct measurements in an elderly population. J Ultrasound Med2000; 19: 727–30.
43.
LaksMP.Age and common bile duct diameter; Letter to editor, with replies. Radiology2002; 225: 921–2.
44.
TopalB, FieuwsS, TomczykK.Clinical models are inaccurate in predicting bile duct stones in situ for patients with gallbladder. Surg Endosc2009; 23: 38–44.
45.
LindsellDRM.The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol2000; 55: 579(reply by Lee MJ included)
46.
FlumDR, Patchen DellingerE, CheadleA.Intra-operative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. JAMA2003; 290: 2168–73.
