Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 工學院
  3. 醫學工程學研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48517
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor趙福杉
dc.contributor.authorYuan-Heng Moen
dc.contributor.author莫元亨zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T07:00:09Z-
dc.date.available2013-02-09
dc.date.copyright2011-02-09
dc.date.issued2011
dc.date.submitted2011-01-24
dc.identifier.citationReference
1.Sokol, R.J. and C.L. Mack, Optimizing outcomes and bridging biliary atresia into adulthood. Hepatology, 2005. 41(2): p. 231-3.
2.Hsiao, C.H., et al., Universal screening for biliary atresia using an infant stool color card in Taiwan. Hepatology, 2008. 47(4): p. 1233-40.
3.Sokol, R.J., et al., Pathogenesis and outcome of biliary atresia: current concepts. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2003. 37(1): p. 4-21.
4.Shinkai, M., et al., Evaluation of the PELD risk score as a severity index of biliary atresia. J Pediatr Surg, 2003. 38(7): p. 1001-4.
5.Erlichman, J., K. Hohlweg, and B.A. Haber, Biliary atresia: how medical complications and therapies impact outcome. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2009. 3(4): p. 425-34.
6.Kobayashi, H. and M.D. Stringer, Biliary atresia. Semin Neonatol, 2003. 8(5): p. 383-91.
7.Kang, N., et al., Hepatic histology and the development of esophageal varices in biliary atresia. J Pediatr Surg, 1993. 28(1): p. 63-6.
8.Stringer, M.D., E.R. Howard, and A.P. Mowat, Endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of esophageal varices in 61 children with biliary atresia. J Pediatr Surg, 1989. 24(5): p. 438-42.
9.Chang, H.K., et al., Hepatic fibrosis scan for liver stiffness score measurement: a useful preendoscopic screening test for the detection of varices in postoperative patients with biliary atresia. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2009. 49(3): p. 323-8.
10.Miga, D., et al., Survival after first esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with biliary atresia. J Pediatr, 2001. 139(2): p. 291-6.
11.Agha, A., et al., External validation of the platelet count/spleen diameter ratio for the diagnosis of esophageal varices in hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci, 2009. 54(3): p. 654-60.
12.Alempijevic, T., et al., Right liver lobe/albumin ratio: contribution to non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension. World J Gastroenterol, 2007. 13(40): p. 5331-5.
13.Awaya, H., et al., Cirrhosis: modified caudate-right lobe ratio. Radiology, 2002. 224(3): p. 769-74.
14.Baig, W.W., et al., Platelet count to spleen diameter ratio for the diagnosis of esophageal varices: Is it feasible? Can J Gastroenterol, 2008. 22(10): p. 825-8.
15.Berzigotti, A., et al., Noninvasive prediction of clinically significant portal hypertension and esophageal varices in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol, 2008. 103(5): p. 1159-67.
16.Burton, J.R., Jr., et al., Validation of a multivariate model predicting presence and size of varices. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2007. 41(6): p. 609-15.
17.de Franchis, R., Noninvasive diagnosis of esophageal varices: is it feasible? Am J Gastroenterol, 2006. 101(11): p. 2520-2.
18.de Franchis, R., Non-invasive (and minimally invasive) diagnosis of oesophageal varices. J Hepatol, 2008. 49(4): p. 520-7.
19.Giannini, E., et al., Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio: proposal and validation of a non-invasive parameter to predict the presence of oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. Gut, 2003. 52(8): p. 1200-5.
20.Giannini, E.G., et al., Application of the platelet count/spleen diameter ratio to rule out the presence of oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis: a validation study based on follow-up. Dig Liver Dis, 2005. 37(10): p. 779-85.
21.Hong, W.D., et al., Predictors of esophageal varices in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis: a retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol, 2009. 9: p. 11.
22.Korula, J., Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio predicted the presence of esophageal varices in liver cirrhosis. ACP J Club, 2004. 140(2): p. 53.
23.Madhotra, R., et al., Prediction of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2002. 34(1): p. 81-5.
24.Rajvanshi, P. and K.V. Kowdley, Prediction of varices in patients with cirrhosis: a high-stakes numbers game? J Clin Gastroenterol, 2002. 34(1): p. 4-5.
25.Schwarzenberger, E., et al., Utilization of platelet count spleen diameter ratio in predicting the presence of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2010. 44(2): p. 146-50.
26.Sharma, S.K. and R. Aggarwal, Prediction of large esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis of the liver using clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2007. 22(11): p. 1909-15.
27.Tacke, F., K. Fiedler, and C. Trautwein, A simple clinical score predicts high risk for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhages from varices in patients with chronic liver disease. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2007. 42(3): p. 374-82.
28.Thabut, D., et al., Prediction of oesophageal varices with platelet count/spleen diameter ratio or platelets alone. Gut, 2004. 53(6): p. 913-4; author reply 914-5.
29.Watanabe, S., et al., Assessment of the presence and severity of esophagogastric varices by splenic index in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2000. 24(5): p. 788-94.
30.Zimbwa, T.A., C. Blanshard, and A. Subramaniam, Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio as a predictor of oesophageal varices in alcoholic cirrhosis. Gut, 2004. 53(7): p. 1055.
31.Shinkai, M., et al., Long-term outcome of children with biliary atresia who were not transplanted after the Kasai operation: >20-year experience at a children's hospital. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2009. 48(4): p. 443-50.
32.Kugelmas, M., Liver biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol, 2004. 99(8): p. 1416-7.
33.Bedossa, P., D. Dargere, and V. Paradis, Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology, 2003. 38(6): p. 1449-57.
34.Hsu, F.O., et al., Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the liver in hepatitis B patients with Child-Pugh a cirrhosis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci, 2007. 23(9): p. 442-6.
35.Wiesner, R.H., et al., MELD and PELD: application of survival models to liver allocation. Liver Transpl, 2001. 7(7): p. 567-80.
36.Ito, K., et al., Compensated cirrhosis due to viral hepatitis: using MR imaging to predict clinical progression. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1997. 169(3): p. 801-5.
37.Ito, K., et al., Viral-induced cirrhosis: grading of severity using MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1999. 173(3): p. 591-6.
38.Mwangi, I., et al., Apparent diffusion coefficient of fibrosis and regenerative nodules in the cirrhotic liver at MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2010. 194(6): p. 1515-22.
39.Le Bihan, D., Diffusion/perfusion MR imaging of the brain: from structure to function. Radiology, 1990. 177(2): p. 328-9.
40.Le Bihan, D., et al., Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology, 1988. 168(2): p. 497-505.
41.Colagrande, S., et al., MR-diffusion weighted imaging of healthy liver parenchyma: repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010. 31(4): p. 912-20.
42.Sandrasegaran, K., et al., Value of diffusion-weighted MRI for assessing liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2009. 193(6): p. 1556-60.
43.Taouli, B., et al., Chronic hepatitis: role of diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and inflammation. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2008. 28(1): p. 89-95.
44.Basaran, C., et al., MR cholangiopancreatography with T2-weighted prospective acquisition correction turbo spin-echo sequence of the biliary anatomy of potential living liver transplant donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008. 190(6): p. 1527-33.
45.Bassignani, M.J., et al., Use of imaging for living donor liver transplantation. Radiographics, 2001. 21(1): p. 39-52.
46.Chen, Y.S., et al., Evaluation of living liver donors. Transplantation, 2003. 75(3 Suppl): p. S16-9.
47.Cheng, Y.F., et al., Single imaging modality evaluation of living donors in liver transplantation: magnetic resonance imaging. Transplantation, 2001. 72(9): p. 1527-33.
48.Chu, W.C., et al., Feasibility of morphologic assessment of vascular and biliary anatomy in pediatric liver transplantation: all-in-one protocol with breath-hold magnetic resonance. J Pediatr Surg, 2005. 40(10): p. 1605-11.
49.Fulcher, A.S., et al., Right lobe living donor liver transplantation: preoperative evaluation of the donor with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001. 176(6): p. 1483-91.
50.Goyen, M., et al., Right-lobe living related liver transplantation: evaluation of a comprehensive magnetic resonance imaging protocol for assessing potential donors. Liver Transpl, 2002. 8(3): p. 241-50.
51.Lee, V.S., et al., MR imaging as the sole preoperative imaging modality for right hepatectomy: a prospective study of living adult-to-adult liver donor candidates. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001. 176(6): p. 1475-82.
52.Lim, J.S., et al., Preoperative MRI of potential living-donor-related liver transplantation using a single dose of gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005. 185(2): p. 424-31.
53.Limanond, P., et al., Preoperative imaging in adult-to-adult living related liver transplant donors: what surgeons want to know. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2004. 28(2): p. 149-57.
54.Sahani, D., et al., Evaluation of living liver transplant donors: method for precise anatomic definition by using a dedicated contrast-enhanced MR imaging protocol. Radiographics, 2004. 24(4): p. 957-67.
55.Schroeder, T., et al., 'All-in-one' imaging protocols for the evaluation of potential living liver donors: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography. Liver Transpl, 2005. 11(7): p. 776-87.
56.Catalano, O.A., et al., Vascular and biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. Radiographics, 2008. 28(2): p. 359-78.
57.Choi, J.W., 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(2): p. 85-90.
58.Kashyap, R., et al., Stratifying risk of biliary complications in adult living donor liver transplantation by magnetic resonance cholangiography. Transplantation, 2008. 85(11): p. 1569-72.
59.Liu, C.L., et al., Safety of donor right hepatectomy without abdominal drainage: a prospective evaluation in 100 consecutive liver donors. Liver Transpl, 2005. 11(3): p. 314-9.
60.Settmacher, U., et al., Living-donor liver transplantation--European experiences. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2004. 19 Suppl 4: p. iv16-21.
61.Imamura, H., et al., Anatomical keys and pitfalls in living donor liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, 2000. 7(4): p. 380-94.
62.Freedman, B.J., S.C. Lowe, and R. Saouaf, MR imaging in hepatic transplantation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2001. 9(4): p. 821-39, vii.
63.Adamek, H.E., et al., A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction. Gut, 1998. 43(5): p. 680-3.
64.Hintze, R.E., et al., Clinical significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy, 1997. 29(3): p. 182-7.
65.Irie, H., et al., Value of MR cholangiopancreatography in evaluating choledochal cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1998. 171(5): p. 1381-5.
66.Sica, G.T., et al., Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with pancreatitis. Radiology, 1999. 210(3): p. 605-10.
67.Taylor, A.C., et al., Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree. Gastrointest Endosc, 2002. 55(1): p. 17-22.
68.Agarwal, S., et al., Fentanyl-augmented MRCP. Abdom Imaging, 2006.
69.Dalal, P.U., et al., Does intravenous glucagon improve common bile duct visualisation during magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography? Results in 42 patients. Eur J Radiol, 2004. 49(3): p. 258-61.
70.Mariani, A., et al., Secretin MRCP and endoscopic pancreatic manometry in the evaluation of sphincter of Oddi function: a comparative pilot study in patients with idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc, 2003. 58(6): p. 847-52.
71.Saremi, F., H. Jadvar, and M.E. Siegel, Pharmacologic interventions in nuclear radiology: indications, imaging protocols, and clinical results. Radiographics, 2002. 22(3): p. 477-90.
72.Silva, A.C., et al., MR cholangiopancreatography: improved ductal distention with intravenous morphine administration. Radiographics, 2004. 24(3): p. 677-87.
73.Wu, S.D., et al., Effects of narcotic analgesic drugs on human Oddi's sphincter motility. World J Gastroenterol, 2004. 10(19): p. 2901-4.
74.Kapoor, V., et al., Intrahepatic biliary anatomy of living adult liver donors: correlation of mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography and intraoperative cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2002. 179(5): p. 1281-6.
75.Lee, V.S., et al., Defining intrahepatic biliary anatomy in living liver transplant donor candidates at mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography versus conventional T2-weighted MR cholangiography. Radiology, 2004. 233(3): p. 659-66.
76.Limanond, P., et al., The utility of MRCP in preoperative mapping of biliary anatomy in adult-to-adult living related liver transplant donors. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2004. 19(2): p. 209-15.
77.Wong, C.S., et al., Scoring short-term mortality after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl, 2010. 16(2): p. 138-46.
78.Freeman, R.B., Jr., et al., The new liver allocation system: moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy. Liver Transpl, 2002. 8(9): p. 851-8.
79.Duche, M., et al., Prophylactic endoscopic sclerotherapy of large esophagogastric varices in infants with biliary atresia. Gastrointest Endosc, 2008. 67(4): p. 732-7.
80.Lilly, J.R. and G. Stellin, Variceal hemorrhage in biliary atresia. J Pediatr Surg, 1984. 19(4): p. 476-9.
81.McClellan, R.D., Bleeding 'ain't' (necessarily) bad in biliary atresia. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2002. 34(1): p. 94-5.
82.Bourdeaux, C., et al., PELD score and posttransplant outcome in pediatric liver transplantation: a retrospective study of 100 recipients. Transplantation, 2005. 79(9): p. 1273-6.
83.Flores-Rendon, A.R., et al., Model for end stage of liver disease (MELD) is better than the Child-Pugh score for predicting in-hospital mortality related to esophageal variceal bleeding. Ann Hepatol, 2008. 7(3): p. 230-4.
84.Fong, T.V., et al., Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for predicting late esophageal varices rebleeding in cirrhotic patients. Hepatogastroenterology, 2008. 55(84): p. 1055-8.
85.Giannini, E.G., et al., Platelet count/spleen diameter ratio for the noninvasive diagnosis of esophageal varices: results of a multicenter, prospective, validation study. Am J Gastroenterol, 2006. 101(11): p. 2511-9.
86.Alempijevic, T. and N. Kovacevic, Right liver lobe diameter:albumin ratio: a new non-invasive parameter for prediction of oesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis (preliminary report). Gut, 2007. 56(8): p. 1166-7; authro reply 1167.
87.Shreiner, D.P. and M. Barlai-Kovach, Diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis with the right-to-left hepatic lobe ratio: concise communication. J Nucl Med, 1981. 22(2): p. 116-20.
88.Zhou, X.P., et al., Liver volume variation in patients with virus-induced cirrhosis: findings on MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007. 189(3): p. W153-9.
89.Luecke, R.H., et al., Postnatal growth considerations for PBPK modeling. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2007. 70(12): p. 1027-37.
90.Young, J.F., et al., Human organ/tissue growth algorithms that include obese individuals and black/white population organ weight similarities from autopsy data. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2009. 72(8): p. 527-40.
91.Kwee, T.C., et al., Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2008. 28(5): p. 1141-8.
92.Perman, W.H., et al., Magnetic resonance measurement of diffusion in the abdomen. Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2009. 20(2): p. 99-104.
93.Harbin, W.P., N.J. Robert, and J.T. Ferrucci, Jr., Diagnosis of cirrhosis based on regional changes in hepatic morphology: a radiological and pathological analysis. Radiology, 1980. 135(2): p. 273-83.
94.Matsuzaki, S., et al., Hepatic lobar differences in progression of chronic liver disease: correlation of asialoglycoprotein scintigraphy and hepatic functional reserve. Hepatology, 1997. 25(4): p. 828-32.
95.Alempijevic, T., et al., Biochemical markers for non-invasive assessment of disease stage in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol, 2009. 15(5): p. 591-4.
96.Nojiri, S., et al., Effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on serum liver enzymes and bile acid metabolism in chronic active hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatol Res, 2009. 39(1): p. 21-30.
97.Ayuso, J.R., et al., Preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in adult live liver donors with volumetric mangafodipir trisodium enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Liver Transpl, 2004. 10(11): p. 1391-7.
98.Goldman, J., et al., Noninvasive preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in right-lobe living donors with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography. Transplant Proc, 2003. 35(4): p. 1421-2.
99.Kim, S.Y., et al., Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors at 3.0-T magnetic resonance cholangiography. Invest Radiol, 2008. 43(8): p. 594-602.
100.Lee, C.M., et al., Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography of anatomic variants of the biliary tree in Taiwanese. J Formos Med Assoc, 2004. 103(2): p. 155-9.
101.Lee, V.S., et al., Liver transplant donor candidates: associations between vascular and biliary anatomic variants. Liver Transpl, 2004. 10(8): p. 1049-54.
102.Lim, J.S., et al., MR cholangiography for evaluation of hilar branching anatomy in transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008. 191(2): p. 537-45.
103.Mortele, K.J. and P.R. Ros, Anatomic variants of the biliary tree: MR cholangiographic findings and clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001. 177(2): p. 389-94.
104.Nakamura, T., et al., Anatomical variations and surgical strategies in right lobe living donor liver transplantation: lessons from 120 cases. Transplantation, 2002. 73(12): p. 1896-903.
105.Yeh, B.M., et al., Biliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: comparison of conventional MR, mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced excretory MR, and multi-detector row CT cholangiography--initial experience. Radiology, 2004. 230(3): p. 645-51.
106.Wallner, B.K., et al., Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequence. Radiology, 1991. 181(3): p. 805-8.
107.Irie, H., et al., Optimal MR cholangiopancreatographic sequence and its clinical application. Radiology, 1998. 206(2): p. 379-87.
108.Chaudhary, A., et al., Comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography in the evaluation of bile duct strictures after cholecystectomy. Br J Surg, 2002. 89(4): p. 433-6.
109.Kejriwal, R., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging of the common bile duct to exclude choledocholithiasis. ANZ J Surg, 2004. 74(8): p. 619-21.
110.Matos, C., et al., Pancreatic duct: morphologic and functional evaluation with dynamic MR pancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology, 1997. 203(2): p. 435-41.
111.Sharma, S.K., et al., Role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc, 2003. 17(6): p. 868-71.
112.Ly, J.N. and F.H. Miller, MR imaging of the pancreas: a practical approach. Radiol Clin North Am, 2002. 40(6): p. 1289-306.
113.Rosch, T., et al., A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc, 2002. 55(7): p. 870-6.
114.Morita, S., et al., Navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction (PACE) technique vs. conventional respiratory-triggered technique for free-breathing 3D MRCP: an initial prospective comparative study using healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2008. 28(3): p. 673-7.
115.Vitellas, K.M., et al., MR cholangiopancreatography of bile and pancreatic duct abnormalities with emphasis on the single-shot fast spin-echo technique. Radiographics, 2000. 20(4): p. 939-57; quiz 1107-8, 1112.
116.Agarwal, S., et al., Fentanyl-augmented MRCP. Abdom Imaging, 2006. 31(5): p. 582-7.
117.Kim, E.E., et al., Morphine-augmented cholescintigraphy in the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1986. 147(6): p. 1177-9.
118.Sho, M., et al., A new evaluation of pancreatic function after pancreatoduodenectomy using secretin magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Am J Surg, 1998. 176(3): p. 279-82.
119.Shneider, B.L., Screening for biliary atresia: A ray of hope. Hepatology, 2008. 47(4): p. 1105-7.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48517-
dc.description.abstract膽道閉鎖是一種先天性的疾病,至今成因仍未明,是一種持續性膽道纖維化的疾病。在我國發生率是3.7/10,000,相較於西方國家0.4~0.8/10,000的機率,明顯高出了許多。膽道閉鎖是阻塞性黃疸中最常見且最嚴重的原因,也是兒童肝臟移植最主要的原因。自從日本籍葛西醫師提出肝門脈腸道造口術之後,膽道閉鎖的存活率已大幅提高。早期診斷,早期手術,對此類病童的長期存活率有重要的影響。但即使接受了成公的手術治療,仍有一部分的存活者還是會持續肝硬化。長期會出現的併發症包括逆行性膽道炎和肝門脈高壓(如食道靜脈瘤出血、腹水、以及脾臟功能亢進等等)。
目前肝臟穿刺仍是評估肝臟硬化程度的黃金標準,但此程序有一定的危險性,同時存在局部組織的差異性和以局部推論整體的誤差。不具侵襲性的磁振造影常被用來追蹤和評估肝炎性肝硬化的進展程度。有數篇研究顯示,罹患肝炎性肝硬化之成人患者的肝臟表面擴散係數會比正常人的數值為低。加入白蛋白與丙氨酸氨基轉移酶所計算得到的擴散係數相關指標,將與肝功能有更明顯的相關性。雖然具有侵入性,目前術中膽道攝影仍然是顯示膽道構造變異的標準影像。
我們的研究首先企圖從接受過葛西氏手術的膽道閉鎖病患之臨床檢驗值和磁振造影影像中,找出實用且簡單的較不具侵入性的定量化影像指標,以預測患者是否會發生食道靜脈瘤的併發症。其次,我們企圖找出膽道閉鎖病患術後之肝臟硬化程度: 臨床肝功能檢驗值,Child-Turcotte(CT)或Child-Pugh(CP)積分,和pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD)或model of end-stage liver disease (MELD)積分,與擴散權重磁振造影所得肝臟表面擴散係數及其相關指標之間的相關性。另外我們也設計了一連串的研究來比較磁振膽道造影與傳統術中膽道攝影的差異,並嘗試給予嗎啡與昇糖素等藥物來改善和增強活體肝臟捐贈者的磁振膽道造影之影像品質。
我們的實驗結果可以得到下列數個結論: (1)較不具侵襲性的磁振造影定量化影像指標能夠成功預測膽道閉鎖患者有無出現臨床明顯的食道靜脈瘤; (2)肝臟表面擴散係數及其相關指標能夠成功預測膽道閉鎖患者的肝硬化程度; (3)磁振膽道攝影的臨床應用不遜於術中膽道攝影; (4)嗎啡類藥物和昇糖素可以使活體肝臟捐贈者的磁振膽道攝影影像更清楚。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractBiliary atresia (BA) is a congenital and progressively obliterative cholangiopathy of unknown etiology. The prevalence rate was about 3.7 in 10000 live births in Taiwan, much higher than western country (about 0.4 to 0.8 in 10000 live births). It is a major and severe cause of obstructive jaundice, also the leading indication for liver transplantation in pediatric population. After a Japanese surgeon, Kasai, reported a portoenterostomy operation for treatment, the long term survival rate has improved greatly. Earlier diagnosis and earlier operation improve the long term survival of biliary atresia. Progressive liver cirrhosis may persist in some patients even after successful operation. Long term complications include retrograde cholangitis, and portal hypertension including esophageal variceal bleeding, ascites and hypersplenism.
Up to date, liver biopsy is still the golden standard of assessing the stages of cirrhosis. However, it has potential risk and is prone to regional sampling variability and error. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a noninvasive imaging modality, was suggested to monitor progression of hepatitis-related cirrhosis periodically to assess the severity of liver cirrhosis. Several previous studies have shown a decrease in hepatic apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) obtained from diffusion weighted image in patients with hepatitis-related liver cirrhosis compared with healthy control subjects. Incorporation of albumin and alanine transaminase into the ADC-related noninvasive indices may correlate with liver function further. MRI also plays an important role in the preoperative evaluation of the living related liver donors to reduce postoperative morbidity and complications. Though invasive, intraoperative cholangiography is still the golden standard in demonstrating anatomical variation of bile ducts.
Firstly, we evaluated the validity of less-invasive quantitative imaging parameters for predicting the presence of clinically significant esophageal varices in BA patients. In addition, the values of hepatic ADC and ADC-related indices were applied to BA patients and correlated with cirrhotic severity scores of Child-Turcotte (CT) or Child-Pugh (CP) systems, and pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) or model of end-stage liver disease (MELD). We also design a serial studies to compare the difference between magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and intraoperative cholangiography, and to investigate the effectiveness of the combined use of intravenous morphine and intramuscular glucagon in improving MRCP image quality in donors for living-related liver transplantation.
Our results may draw conclusions including: (1) less-invasive quantitative imaging parameters can predict the presence of clinically significant esophageal varices in BA patients; (2) the values of hepatic ADC and ADC-related indices can predict the cirrhotic severity of BA patients and negatively correlated with clinical cirrhotic severity score systems; (3) MRCP is comparable to intraoperative cholangiography in clinical usage; (4) combined usage of morphine and glucagon can improve MRCP image quality in donors for living-related liver transplantation.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T07:00:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-100-D94548006-1.pdf: 2366145 bytes, checksum: 52f8e4147f301a92c9d5dee4a595be25 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2011
en
dc.description.tableofcontents目 錄
口試委員會審定書………………………………………………… i
誌謝………………………………………………………………… ii
中文摘要…………………………………………………………… iii
英文摘要…………………………………………………………… iv
圖表目錄…………………………………………………………… vi
縮寫與詞彙對照表………………………………………………… vii
目錄………………………………………………………………… viii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Biliary atresia ……………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Detection of complication using MRI ……………………………………………………………… 2
1.3 Pre-transplantation evaluation of bile ducts of living-related donors using MRCP ……………………………………………………………… 4
Chapter 2. Materials and methods
2.1 Less- invasive MR indices of clinically evident esophageal varices in biliary atresia patients ……………………………………………………………… 7
2.2 Hepatic ADC value correlates with cirrhotic severity of patients with biliary atresia ……………………………………………………………… 14
2.3 Use of MRCP in living-related liver donors-comparison with intraoperative cholangiography ……………………………………………………………… 18
2.4 Morphine- and glucagon-augmented MRCP to evaluate living-related liver donors ……………………………………………………………… 21
Chapter 3. Results
3.1 Less- invasive MR indices of clinically evident esophageal varices in biliary atresia patients ……………………………………………………………… 26
3.2 Hepatic ADC value correlates with cirrhotic severity of patients with biliary atresia ……………………………………………………………… 27
3.3 Use of MRCP in living-related liver donors-comparison with intraoperative cholangiography ……………………………………………………………… 29
3.4 Morphine- and glucagon-augmented MRCP to evaluate living-related liver donors ……………………………………………………………… 30
Chapter 4. Discussion
4.1 Less- invasive MR indices of clinically evident esophageal varices in biliary atresia patients ……………………………………………………………… 33
4.2 Hepatic ADC value correlates with cirrhotic severity of patients with biliary atresia ……………………………………………………………… 37
4.3 Use of MRCP in living-related liver donors-comparison with intraoperative cholangiography ……………………………………………………………… 42
4.4 Morphine- and glucagon-augmented MRCP to evaluate living-related liver donors ……………………………………………………………… 44
Chapter 5. Conclusion and future works
5.1 Less- invasive MR indices of clinically evident esophageal varices in biliary atresia patients ……………………………………………………………… 49
5.2 Hepatic ADC value correlates with cirrhotic severity of patients with biliary atresia ……………………………………………………………… 49
5.3 Use of MRCP in living-related liver donors-comparison with intraoperative cholangiography ……………………………………………………………… 50
5.4 Morphine- and glucagon-augmented MRCP to evaluate living-related liver donors ……………………………………………………………… 50
5.5 Future works ……………………………………………………………… 50
References ……………………………………………………………… 74
Appendix: publications list ……………………………………………………………… 83
dc.language.isoen
dc.subject肝臟纖維硬化zh_TW
dc.subject膽道閉鎖zh_TW
dc.subject磁振造影zh_TW
dc.subject擴散權重磁振造影zh_TW
dc.subject表面擴散係數zh_TW
dc.subject磁振膽道攝影zh_TW
dc.subject膽道攝影zh_TW
dc.subjectcholangiographyen
dc.subjectmagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographyen
dc.subjectapparent diffusion coefficienten
dc.subjectdiffusion weighted imageen
dc.subjectliver fibrosis/cirrhosisen
dc.subjectmagnetic resonance imagingen
dc.subjectbiliary atresiaen
dc.title運用磁振造影技術定量分析肝臟功能性生物指標與膽道型態
— 臨床應用於膽道閉鎖患者與親屬活體肝臟捐贈者
zh_TW
dc.titleQuantitative analysis of hepatic functional biomarker and biliary morphology using MRI techniques
— clinical application in patients with biliary atresia
and living-related liver donors
en
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear99-1
dc.description.degree博士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee李瑤華,廖漢文,黃基礎,郭德盛
dc.subject.keyword膽道閉鎖,磁振造影,肝臟纖維硬化,擴散權重磁振造影,表面擴散係數,磁振膽道攝影,膽道攝影,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordbiliary atresia,magnetic resonance imaging,liver fibrosis/cirrhosis,diffusion weighted image,apparent diffusion coefficient,magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,cholangiography,en
dc.relation.page83
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2011-01-24
dc.contributor.author-college工學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept醫學工程學研究所zh_TW
顯示於系所單位:醫學工程學研究所

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-100-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
2.31 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved