https://www.ijmhr.org/ijar.htm editor_anatomy@ijmhr.org
ISSN:       2321-4281 (E) 2321-8967 (P)

IJAR.2019.131

DOWNLOAD PDF
Table of Contents

Type of Article:  Original

Volume 7; Issue 2.1 (April 2019)

Page No.: 6416-6419

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2019.131

ANATOMICAL VARIATIONS OF THE CYSTIC DUCT AND THEIR SURGICAL IMPLICATIONS IN SUDANESE POPULATION: A CADAVERIC STUDY

Ali Yasen Yasen MohamedAhmed *1 , Alaa A. Salih 2, Mohamed A. A. Adam 2, Salma Saeed Sulaiman Mohammed 1, Mohamed Elghazali Ahmed Basheer Elhasan 1, Mohamed Ahmed Abdalla 3.

1 Sudan Medical Specialization Board, Sudan.

2 6th Year Medical Student, University of Khartoum Faculty of Medicine, Sudan.

3 Department of Anatomy, University of Khartoum Faculty of Medicine, Sudan.

Corresponding Author: Dr. Ali Yasen Yasen MohamedAhmed,MBBS,MSc,MD,MRCS. P.O. Box 102, Alqasr Avenue, Khartoum 11111, Sudan. E-Mail: dr.aliyasen1@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Background: Anatomic variations of cystic ducts are common and continuously encountered during Surgical and radiological interventions. Failure to identify these clinically important variations may result in complications during surgical or endoscopic procedures.

Patients and methods: This is an observational descriptive cross-sectional study. 65 cadavers in the dissecting rooms of the medical colleges, in which the length and mode of insertion of cystic duct (CD) into common bile duct (CBD) were observed.

Results: The mean length of the CD in the cadavers examined was (2.06 ± 1.03) with a minimum length of ≤ 0.5 cm and a maximum of 5 cm. Regarding the mode of insertion of CD into the CBD; 53.8% were found to have a low junction between the CD and common hepatic duct (CHD) which is considered the normal insertion. 46.2% found to be abnormal variations of insertion; short CD (≤0.5 cm) observed in 10.8%; whereas in 13.8% of cadavers we found that the CD is adherent to the CHD and runs in parallel to it. In 7.8% there was a high junction between the CD and CBD and in 9.2% we found that CD courses anterior or posterior to CBD and joins it medially.

Conclusion: CD variations are not uncommon and it is important to identify these anatomical variations. A detailed knowledge of the extra hepatic biliary tract, as well as of its variations, is important for the diagnostic and therapeutic success in many clinical situations since they allow the surgeon prompt identification of certain pathologies, making surgical procedures more accurate and affective.

KEY WORDS: Cystic Duct, Common Bile Duct, Common Hepatic Duct, Anatomical Variations.

REFERENCES

  1. Netter FH. The Ciba collection of medical illustrations. Vol 111. Digestive system. Part III. Liver, biliary tract and pancreas. Summit, NJ: Ciba Pharmaceutical, 1957; 22–24.
  2. Friedman AC, Sachs L. Embryology, anatomy, histology and radiologic anatomy. In: Friedman AC, ed. Radiology of the liver, biliary tract, pancreas and spleen. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, 1987; 305–332.
  3. J. Shaw, P. J.Dorsher, and J. A.Vennes, “Cystic duct anatomy: an endoscopic perspective,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 1993;88(12):2102–2106.
  4. Zeman RK, Burrell MI. Gallbladder and bile duct imaging. New York, NY: Churchill-Livingstone, 1987; 36–46.
  5. Puente SG, Bannura GC. Radiological anatomy of the biliary tract: variations and congenital abnormalities. World J Surg 1983; 7:271–276.
  6. Hayes MA, Goldenberg IS, Bishop CC. The developmental basis for bile duct anomalies. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1958;107:447–456.
  7. Schulte SJ. Embryology and congenital anomalies of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. In: Silvis SE, Rohrmann CA, Ansel HJ, eds. Techniques and interpretation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic intervention. New York, NY: Igaku-Shoin, 1995;114–145.
  8. T. Buddingh, A. N. Morks, H. O. Ten Cate Hoedemaker et al., “Documenting correct assessment of biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” Surgical Endoscopy 2012;26(1):79–85.
  9. Hatzidakis, P. Venetucci, M. Krokidis, and V. Iaccarino, “Percutaneous biliary interventions through the gallbladder and the cystic duct: what radiologists need to know,” Clinical Radiology, 2014;69(12):1304–1311.
  10. A.H.Talpur, A. A. Laghari, S. A. Yousfani,A.M.Malik,A. I. Memon, and S. A. Khan, “Anatomical variations and congenital anomalies of extra hepatic biliary system encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 2010;60(2):89–93.
  11. Choi JW, Kim TK, Kim KW, Kim AY, Kim PN, Ha HK, et al. Anatomic variation in intrahepatic bile ducts: An analysis of intraoperative cholangiograms in 300 consecutive donors for living donor liver transplantation. Korean J Radiol 2003;4:85‑
  12. Hirono Y, Takita Y, Nitta N, Hashimoto H. Double cystic duct found by intraoperative cholangiography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1997;7:263–265.
  13. Cachoeira E, Rivas A, Gabrielli C Anatomic Variations of Extrahepatic Bile Ducts and Evaluation of the Length of Ducts Composing the Cystohepatic Triangle. Int. J. Morphol., 2012;30(1):279-283.
  14. Caroli-Bosc, F. X.; Demarquay, J. F.; Conio, M.; Deveau, C.; Hastier, P. & Harris, A. Is biliary lithogenesis affected by length and implantation of cystic duct? Study of 270 patients with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Dig. Dis. Sci., 1997;(10):2045-51.
  15. Onder, M. S.  Ozdemir, G. Tekbas¸, F. Ekici, H. G¨um¨us¸, and A. Bilici. 3-T MRI of the biliary tract variations. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 2013;35(2):161–167.
  16. J. Mortel´e, T. C. Rocha, J. L. Streeter, and A. J. Taylor. Multimodality imaging of pancreatic and biliary congenital anomalies. Radiographics, 2006;26(3):715–731.
  17. Taourel, P. M. Bret, C. Reinhold, A. N. Barkun, and M. Atri, “Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: diagnosis with MR cholangiopancreatography,” Radiology 1996;199(2):521– 527.
  18. Tsitouridis, G. Lazaraki, C. Papastergiou, E. Pagalos, and G. Germanidis, “Low conjunction of the cystic duct with the common bile duct: does it correlate with the formation of common bile duct stones?” Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 2007;21(1):48–52.
  19. Turner MA, Fulcher A. The Cystic Duct: Normal Anatomy and Disease Processes. RadioGraphics 2001; 21:3–22
  20. Theodoros E. Pavlidis et al – Long, Parallel Cystic Duct in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography, JSLS 2008;12:407–409.
  21. Arun Kumar S. Bilodi, Gangadhar MR – Cystic Duct Remnant Syndrome Associated with Symptomatic Dilatation of Cyst Duct, International Journal of Anatomical Sciences 2011;2(2):34-36
  22. J. Mortel´e and P. R. Ros, “Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications,” American Journal of Roentgenology, 2001;177(2):389–394.
  23. Kwon AH, Uetsuji S, Ogura T, Kamiyama Y. Spiral computed tomography scanning after intravenous infusion cholangiography for biliary duct anomalies. Am J Surg 1997;174:396–401.
  24. Selvaggi, G. Cappello, A. Astolfi et al., “Endoscopic therapy for type B surgical biliary injury in a patient with short cystic duct,” Il Giornale di Chirurgia 2010;31(5):229–232.
  25. Hirao K, Miyazaki A, Fujimoto T, Isomoto I, Hayashi K. Evaluation of Aberrant Bile Ducts Before Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy AJR September 2000;175(3):713-720.
  26. Adam Y, Metcalf W. Absence of the cystic duct: a case report, the embryology and a review of the literature. Ann Surg 1966;164:1056 –1058.
  27. Allan S, Hurrell TA. Agenesis of the gallbladder and cystic duct: a report of 3 cases. Br J Surg 1974;61:145–146.
  28. Bogardus GM, Lundmark VO. The short or absent cystic duct. Surgery 1969;65:274 –275.
  29. Lewis FT. Development of the liver. In: Keibel, Mall, editors. Manual of embryology, Vol. II. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1912;403.
  30. G. Awazli. Anatomical variations of extrahepatic biliary system,” Iraqi Journal of Medical Science, 2013;11(3):258–264.
  31. Cachoeira E, Rivas A, Gabrielli C Anatomic Variations of Extrahepatic Bile Ducts and Evaluation of the Length of Ducts Composing the Cystohepatic Triangle. Int. J. Morphol., 2012;30(1):279-283.
  32. Lamah M, Dickson GH. Congenital anatomical abnormalities of the extrahepatic biliary duct: a personal audit. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 1999;21(5):325-327.
  33. Dia A, Venditelli F, Valleix D, Descottes B. Le canal cystique double. A propos d’un cas. Ann Chir 1989;43:306 –308.

Cite this article: Ali Yasen Yasen MohamedAhmed, Alaa A. Salih, Mohamed A. A. Adam, Salma Saeed Sulaiman Mohammed, Mohamed Elghazali Ahmed Basheer Elhasan, Mohamed Ahmed Abdalla. ANATOMICAL VARIATIONS OF THE CYSTIC DUCT AND THEIR SURGICAL IMPLICATIONS IN SUDANESE POPULATION: A CADAVERIC STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2019;7(2.1):6416-6419. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2019.131