Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026
Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound for Preduodenal Portal Vein Detection in Pediatric Patients: Our Institution's Experience and Review of Previous 130 Case Reports.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hosokawa Takahiro, Namba Sakie, Deie Kyoichi, Sato Yumiko, Tanami Yutaka, Kawashima Hiroshi, Oguma Eiji
Аннотация
PURPOSES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography in identifying the preduodenal portal vein and examine the factors influencing its diagnostic performance. Furthermore, we reviewed previously published case reports and series on this anomaly.
METHODS: We included 17 patients diagnosed with a preduodenal portal vein, confirmed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography and/or surgical findings. Patients were categorized into the following two groups: those in whom the anomaly was detected and those in whom it was not detected via initial ultrasonography. The presence or absence of intestinal malrotation, polysplenia/asplenia, and symptoms were compared using Fisher's exact tests.
RESULTS: Of the 17 pediatric patients with a preduodenal portal vein, 10 were correctly diagnosed on initial ultrasonography, yielding a sensitivity of 58.8%. A significant difference was observed only in the presence of symptoms (detection group vs. nondetection group: 7/3 vs. 1/6, p = 0.049). No significant difference was found in the presence or absence of intestinal malrotation (6/4 vs. 5/2, p > 0.999) or splenic anomalies (polysplenia/asplenia: 4/5 vs. 5/2, p = 0.358; one patient had no splenic anomaly).
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of ultrasonography for the duodenal portal vein was more than 50%; however, this anomaly was more likely to be overlooked in asymptomatic patients than in symptomatic patients.
METHODS: We included 17 patients diagnosed with a preduodenal portal vein, confirmed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography and/or surgical findings. Patients were categorized into the following two groups: those in whom the anomaly was detected and those in whom it was not detected via initial ultrasonography. The presence or absence of intestinal malrotation, polysplenia/asplenia, and symptoms were compared using Fisher's exact tests.
RESULTS: Of the 17 pediatric patients with a preduodenal portal vein, 10 were correctly diagnosed on initial ultrasonography, yielding a sensitivity of 58.8%. A significant difference was observed only in the presence of symptoms (detection group vs. nondetection group: 7/3 vs. 1/6, p = 0.049). No significant difference was found in the presence or absence of intestinal malrotation (6/4 vs. 5/2, p > 0.999) or splenic anomalies (polysplenia/asplenia: 4/5 vs. 5/2, p = 0.358; one patient had no splenic anomaly).
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of ultrasonography for the duodenal portal vein was more than 50%; however, this anomaly was more likely to be overlooked in asymptomatic patients than in symptomatic patients.