THE VALUE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE LYMPHANGIOGRAPHY IN EVALUATING ANATOMY AND DIAGNOSING THORACIC DUCT FISTULA
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the value of intranodal dynamic magnetic resonance lymphangiography (DMRL) with Digital subtraction lymphagiography (DSA) in identifying anatomy and diagnosing thoracic duct leakage. Materials and methods: 42 patients diagnosed with chylous leak (26 women, 16 men; 35 traumatic chylous, 7 nontraumatic chylous) underwent intranodal DMRL and DSA at Radiology center of Hanoi Medical University Hospital. Results: The most common locations of thoracic duct injury were the neck segment in 19/42 patients (45%) and the thoracic segment with 16/42 patients (38%). Anatomical evaluation revealed that 50% of patients had a normal thoracic duct anatomy, while 33.3% lacked a cisterna chyli. Comparing the anatomical assessment capabilities of DMRL and DSA showed a high level of agreement for normal anatomy, a completely left-sided thoracic duct, absence of cisterna chyli, and distal partial duplication of the thoracic duct. Regarding the ability to detect fistula, DMRL compared with DSA has a sensitivity of 92%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, a negative predictive value of 57%. Conclusion: Intranodal dynamic magnetic resonance lymphangiography is a minimally invasive, radiation-free technique that provides comprehensive anatomical information as well as high sensitivity and specificity in detecting thoracic duct leak.
Article Details
Keywords
MR lymphangiography, thoracic duct, chyle leak, intranodal lymphangiography
References
2. Bolger C, Walsh TN, Tanner WA, Keeling P, Hennessy TPJ. Chylothorax after oesophagectomy. British Journal of Surgery. 2005;78(5):587-588. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800780521
3. Toliyat M, Singh K, Sibley RC, Chamarthy M, Kalva SP, Pillai AK. Interventional radiology in the management of thoracic duct injuries: Anatomy, techniques and results. Clinical Imaging. 2017;42: 183-192. doi:10.1016/j. clinimag. 2016.12.012
4. Itkin M, Nadolski GJ. Modern Techniques of Lymphangiography and Interventions: Current Status and Future Development. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(3):366-376. doi:10. 1007/s00270-017-1863-2
5. Majdalany BS, El-Haddad G. Contemporary lymphatic interventions for post-operative lymphatic leaks. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(S1): S104-S113. doi:10.21037/ tau.2019.08.15
6. Pamarthi V, Pabon-Ramos WM, Marnell V, Hurwitz LM. MRI of the Central Lymphatic System: Indications, Imaging Technique, and Pre-Procedural Planning. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;26(4): 175-180. doi:10.1097/RMR. 0000000000000130
7. Munn LL, Padera TP. Imaging the lymphatic system. Microvasc Res. 2014;0:55-63. doi:10. 1016/j.mvr.2014.06.006
8. Hematti H, Mehran RJ. Anatomy of the thoracic duct. Thorac Surg Clin. 2011;21(2):229-238, ix. doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2011.01.002
9. Itkin M, Kucharczuk JC, Kwak A, Trerotola SO, Kaiser LR. Nonoperative thoracic duct embolization for traumatic thoracic duct leak: Experience in 109 patients. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2010; 139(3):584-590. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.11.025
10. Lee CW, Koo HJ, Shin JH, Kim M young, Yang DH. Postoperative Chylothorax: the Use of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Lymphangiography and Thoracic Duct Embolization. Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2018;22(3):182-186. doi:10.13104/imri.2018.22.3.182