International Journal of Biomedicine. 2020;10(4):392-396.
Originally published December 10, 2020
The purpose of our study was to evaluate the common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct (PD) diameter among healthy adult Sudanese subjects using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). In addition, this study aimed to determine the effects of age, gender, and body height and weight on the CBD and PD diameters to establish a reference range for these ducts on MRCP, which is very useful in a daily clinical setting where MRCP is commonly performed to evaluate suspected biliary tract disease.
Methods and Results: This study included 80 asymptomatic subjects who underwent MRCP. The widest diameter of the CBD and PD was measured perpendicular to their long axes using the electronic caliper. The applied MRCP imaging technique was in line with the guidelines used by Chen et al.(2012) The age, gender, medical history, body height and body weight were recorded.
Among the 80 subjects, the mean CBD diameter on MRCP was 6.17±0.69 mm (range of 4-8 mm). There was a significant correlation between the CBD diameter and weight (r=0.407, P<0.001). The mean PD diameter on MRCP was 3.80±0.50mm (range of 2-5 mm). There was also a significant correlation between the PD diameter and weight (r=0.407, P<0.001). In the cohort of 80 subjects, the mean CBD diameter in females was larger than in males(6.50±0.632mm and 5.95±0.677mm, respectively), and this difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Also, the mean PD diameter in females was statistically larger than in males (6.03±0.66mm and 5.58±0.675mm, respectively), and this difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Our results demonstrate no significant correlation between the diameter of CBD and PD and participants' height and age.
Conclusion: The importance of the current study lies in it’s being one of the few studies whose intention was to use MRCP to bridge the knowledge gap in the literature about the measurement of the CBD and PD diameter among healthy adult Sudanese subjects.
1. Chen T, Hung CR, Huang AC, Lii JM, Chen RC. The diameter of the common bile duct in an asymptomatic Taiwanese population: measurement by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. J Chin Med Assoc. 2012 Aug;75(8):384-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2012.06.002.
2. Matcuk GR Jr, Grant EG, Ralls PW. Ultrasound measurements of the bile ducts and gallbladder: normal ranges and effects of age, sex, cholecystectomy, and pathologic states. Ultrasound Q. 2014 Mar;30(1):41-8. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182a80c98.
3. Daradkeh S, Tarawneh E, Al-Hadidy A. Factors affecting common bile duct diameter. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005 Nov-Dec;52(66):1659-61.
4. Senturk S, Miroglu TC, Bilici A, Gumus H, Tekin RC, Ekici F, Tekbas G. Diameters of the common bile duct in adults and postcholecystectomy patients: a study with 64-slice CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Jan;81(1):39-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.007.
5. Romagnuolo J, Bardou M, Rahme E, Joseph L, Reinhold C, Barkun AN. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Oct 7;139(7):547-57. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-7-200310070-00006.
6. Tirkes T, Shah ZK, Takahashi N, Grajo JR, Chang ST, Venkatesh SK, Conwell DL, Fogel EL, Park W, Topazian M, Yadav D, Dasyam AK; Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer. Reporting Standards for Chronic Pancreatitis by Using CT, MRI, and MR Cholangiopancreatography: The Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer. Radiology. 2019 Jan;290(1):207-215. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181353.
7. Bowie JD. What is the upper limit of normal for the common bile duct on ultrasound: how much do you want it to be? Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Apr;95(4):897-900. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01925.x.
8. Wachsberg RH. Respiratory variation of extrahepatic bile duct diameter during ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1994 Aug;13(8):617-21. doi: 10.7863/jum.19188.8.131.527.
9. Peng R, Zhang L, Zhang XM, Chen TW, Yang L, Huang XH, Zhang ZM. Common bile duct diameter in an asymptomatic population: A magnetic resonance imaging study. World J Radiol. 2015 Dec 28;7(12):501-8. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i12.501.
10. Wu CC, Ho YH, Chen CY. Effect of aging on common bile duct diameter: a real-time ultrasonographic study. J Clin Ultrasound. 1984 Oct;12(8):473-8. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870120804.
11. Horrow MM, Horrow JC, Niakosari A, Kirby CL, Rosenberg HK. Is age associated with size of adult extrahepatic bile duct: sonographic study. Radiology. 2001 Nov;221(2):411-4. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2212001700.
12. Chen T, Hung CR, Huang AC, Lii JM, Chen RC. The diameter of the common bile duct in an asymptomatic Taiwanese population: measurement by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. J Chin Med Assoc. 2012 Aug;75(8):384-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2012.06.002.
13. Park JS, Lee DH, Jeong S, Cho SG. Determination of Diameter and Angulation of the Normal Common Bile Duct using Multidetector Computed Tomography. Gut Liver. 2009 Dec;3(4):306-10. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2009.3.4.306.
14. Ladas SD, Tassios PS, Giorgiotis K, Rokkas T, Theodosiou P, Raptis SA. Pancreatic duct width: its significance as a diagnostic criterion for pancreatic disease. Hepatogastroenterology. 1993 Feb;40(1):52-5.
15. Hadidi A. Pancreatic duct diameter: sonographic measurement in normal subjects. J Clin Ultrasound. 1983 Jan;11(1):17-22. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870110105.
16. Akochi S, Ugwu AC, Otuh I. Sonographic measurement of pancreatic duct diameter in apparently healthy adults in Abakaliki metropolis. International Journal of Sciences and Applied Research 2018; 5(8): 1–16.
17. Glaser J, Högemann B, Krummenerl T, Schneider M, Hultsch E, van Husen N, Gerlach U. Sonographic imaging of the pancreatic duct. New diagnostic possibilities using secretin stimulation. Dig Dis Sci. 1987 Oct;32(10):1075-81. doi: 10.1007/BF01300191.
18. Economou G, Ward-McQuaid JN. A cross-over comparison of the effect of morphine, pethidine, pentazocine, and phenazocine on biliary pressure. Gut. 1971 Mar;12(3):218-21. doi: 10.1136/gut.12.3.218.
Received October 12, 2020.
Accepted November 23, 2020.
©2020 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.