Motta-Ramírez GA, Mundo-Gómez C, Ramírez-Arias JL

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 19-29
PDF size: 668.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

lntroduction: Congenital anomalies ofthe superior vena cava (SVC) and the inferior vena cava (IVC) and its trihutaries have become more commonly recognized in asymptomatic patients.
Objective: The purpose is to illustrate the role of MDCT in the diagnosis of disease processes affecting the SVC and the NC. To show with examples that MDCT is the best imaging technique in the evaluation of congenital anomalies involving the SVC & IVC.
Material and methods: This is a prospective, transversal, observational, descriptive study. From June, 2006 to June, 2009, we include patients were studied through CT and UGI series. Presence or absence of Dd, type & location, mimic a cystic neoplasm arising from the head ofthe pancreas proven to be a Dd, and complications were all investigated. All CT scans were obtained using a 8 MDCT scanner scanning with conditions were as descrihed in this article included data acquisition for 3D CT venography started 50 and 70s after injection of contrast medium.
Results: We were able to, according to its developmentallevel, identified 18 anomalies of both the SVC and the IVC, 0.15% of our study population. The IVC anomalies can be divided into three types (a) Anomalies ofthe subrenal segment include left IVC, double IVC the most common, 33.3%, Left IVC, (b) Anomalies of the renal segment include retro aortic left renal ve in and circumaortic venous ring and (c) Anomalies of the suprarenal segment include azygos continuation of the inferior vena cava, left, IVC with hemiazygos continuation, and congenital membranes.
Conclusions: The embryogenesis of the SVC and the IVC is a complex process. The result is numerous variations in the basic venous plan of the thorax, ahdomen and pelvis. A working knowledge of SVC, IVC anomalies is essential to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Knowledge of caval anomalies can prevent misinterpretation ofmediastinal masses, iliac occlusion with venous collaterals, and paravertebral lymph node enlargement.

REFERENCES

1. l. Bass EJ, Redwine MD, Kramer LA, Huynh PT y Harris JH. Spectrum of congenital anomalies of the inferior vena cava: Cross sectional imaging findings. Radiographics 2000; 20: 639 52.

2. Motta Ramírez GA, Zagaceta MCB. Variantes anatómi cas vasculares incidentales demostradas por TCMD tora coabdominopélvica. An Radial M ex 2007; 4: 297 312.

3. Sheth S y Fishman EK. Imaging of the inferior vena cava with MDCT. AJR 2007; 189: 1243 51.

4. Zhang L, Yang G, Shen W y Qi J. Spectrum of the infe rior vena cava: MDCT findings. Abdom Imaging 2006.

5. Masood J, Barua JM. Images in clinical medicine: Dupli cation of the inferior vena cava. NEJM 2007; 356: 18.

6. Peltier J, Destrieux C, Desme J, Remond RR, Velut S. The persistent left superior vena cava: Anatomical stu dy, pathogenesis and clinical considerations. Surg Radiol Anat 2006; 28: 206 10.

7. Kandpal H, Sharma R, Gamangatti S, Srivastava DN, Vashisht S. Imaging the inferior vena cava: a road less traveled. Radiographics 2008; 28: 669 89.

8. Fry AC, Warwicker P. Bilateral superior vena cava. NEJM 2007; 356: 18.

9. Sartori MT, Zampieri P, Andres AL, Prandoni P, Motta R, Miotto D. Double vena cava filter insertion in congenital duplicated inferior vena cava: a case report and literatu re review. Haematologica 2006; 91(6): e85 e86.

10. Johnson JE, Loveday EJ, Archer LJ, Lear P, Thornton MJ. Preoperative evaluation oflive renal donors using multisli ce CT angiography. Clin Rad 2005; 60: 771 7.

11. Dachman AH, Newmark GM, Mitchell WT, Woodle ES. Helical CT examination of potential kidney donors. AJR 1998; 171: 193 200.

12. Limanond P, Raman SS, Ghobrial RM, Busuttil RW, Saab S, Lu DSK. Preoperative imaging in adult to adult living related liver transplant donor. JCAT 2004; 28: 149 57.

13. Mathews R, Smith PS, Fishman EK y Marshall FF. Uro logy 1999; 53: 873 80.