Definition of Age-dependent Reference Values for the Diameter of the Common Bile Duct and Pancreatic Duct on MRCP: a Population-based, Cross-sectional Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Gut

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2023 Feb 24

PMID 36828626

Authors

Georg Beyer

Florian Kasprowicz

Anke Hannemann

Ali Aghdassi

Patrick Thamm

Henry Volzke

Markus M Lerch

Jens-Peter Kuhn

Julia Mayerle

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Changes of the pancreaticobiliary ducts herald disease. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) allows accurate duct visualisation. Data on reliable upper reference ranges are missing.

Design: Cross-sectional whole body MRI data from the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania were analysed. The width of the common bile duct (CBD) and the pancreatic duct (PD) was determined. We aimed to describe the distribution of physiological duct diameters on MRCP in a population of healthy subjects and to identify factors influencing duct size.

Results: After excluding pre-existing pancreaticobiliary conditions, CBD and PD diameters from 938 and 774 healthy individuals, respectively, showed a significant increase with age (p<0.0001) and exceeded the conventional upper reference limit of normal in 10.9% and 18.2%, respectively. Age-dependent upper reference limits of duct diameters were delineated with non-parametric quantile regression, defined as 95th percentile: for CBD up to 8 mm in subjects <65 years and up to 11 mm in subjects ≥65 years. For the PD reference diameters were up to 3 mm in subjects <65 years and up to 4 mm in subjects ≥65 years.

Conclusions: This is the first population-based study delineating age-adjusted upper reference limits of CBD and PD on MRCP. We showed that up to 18.2% of healthy volunteers would have needed diagnostic workup, if the conventional reference values were used. The utilisation of the adapted reference levels may help to avoid unnecessary investigations and thus to reduce healthcare expenditure and test-related adverse events.

Citing Articles

A new preprocedural predictive risk model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The SuPER model.

Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Suzuki T, Shimizu H, Shibukawa G, Nakajima Y Elife. 2025; 13.

PMID: 39819489 PMC: 11741517. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.101604.

Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas.

Meier J, Lucius C, Moller K, Jenssen C, Zervides C, Gschmack A Ultrasound Int Open. 2024; 10:a23899085.

PMID: 39411753 PMC: 11475099. DOI: 10.1055/a-2389-9085.

Scaling a Hydraulic Motor for Minimally Invasive Medical Devices.

Vinnakota M, Bellur K, Starnes S, Schulz M Micromachines (Basel). 2024; 15(1).

PMID: 38258250 PMC: 10818856. DOI: 10.3390/mi15010131.

An overview of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: from here to where?.

Yang Y, Zhang X Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1171098.

PMID: 37197436 PMC: 10183586. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1171098.

Consensus definition of sludge and microlithiasis as a possible cause of pancreatitis.

Zorniak M, Sirtl S, Beyer G, Mahajan U, Bretthauer K, Schirra J Gut. 2023; 72(10):1919-1926.

PMID: 37072178 PMC: 10511955. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327955.

References

Bachar G, Cohen M, Belenky A, Atar E, Gideon S . Effect of aging on the adult extrahepatic bile duct: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med. 2003; 22(9):879-82. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.9.879. View

Bowie J . 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; 95(4):897-900. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01925.x. View

McArthur T, Planz V, Fineberg N, Tessler F, Robbin M, Lockhart M . The common duct dilates after cholecystectomy and with advancing age: reality or myth?. J Ultrasound Med. 2013; 32(8):1385-91. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.32.8.1385. View

Niederau C, Muller J, Sonnenberg A, Scholten T, Erckenbrecht J, Fritsch W . Extrahepatic bile ducts in healthy subjects, in patients with cholelithiasis, and in postcholecystectomy patients: a prospective ultrasonic study. J Clin Ultrasound. 1983; 11(1):23-7. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.1870110106. View

Benjaminov F, Leichtman G, Naftali T, Half E, Konikoff F . Effects of age and cholecystectomy on common bile duct diameter as measured by endoscopic ultrasonography. Surg Endosc. 2012; 27(1):303-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2445-7. View

Majeed A, Ross B, Johnson A, Reed M . Common duct diameter as an independent predictor of choledocholithiasis: is it useful?. Clin Radiol. 1999; 54(3):170-2. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91008-5. View

McArthur T, Planz V, Fineberg N, Berland L, Lockhart M . CT evaluation of common duct dilation after cholecystectomy and with advancing age. Abdom Imaging. 2014; 40(6):1581-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-014-0308-5. View

Senturk S, Miroglu T, Bilici A, Gumus H, Tekin R, Ekici F . Diameters of the common bile duct in adults and postcholecystectomy patients: a study with 64-slice CT. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 81(1):39-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.007. View

Hegenscheid K, Kuhn J, Volzke H, Biffar R, Hosten N, Puls R . Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging of healthy volunteers: pilot study results from the population-based SHIP study. Rofo. 2009; 181(8):748-59. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109510. View

10.

Karamanos E, Inaba K, Berg R, Resnick S, Okoye O, Alexopoulos S . The Relationship between Age, Common Bile Duct Diameter and Diagnostic Probability in Suspected Choledocholithiasis. Dig Surg. 2017; 34(5):421-428. DOI: 10.1159/000455272. View

11.

Kaim A, Steinke K, Frank M, Enriquez R, KIRSCH E, Bongartz G . Diameter of the common bile duct in the elderly patient: measurement by ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8(8):1413-5. DOI: 10.1007/s003300050563. View

12.

Gutt C, Jenssen C, Barreiros A, Gotze T, Stokes C, Jansen P . [Updated S3-Guideline for Prophylaxis, Diagnosis and Treatment of Gallstones. German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and German Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (DGAV) - AWMF Registry 021/008]. Z Gastroenterol. 2018; 56(8):912-966. DOI: 10.1055/a-0644-2972. View

13.

Sivak Jr M, SULLIVAN Jr B . Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: analysis of the normal pancreatogram. Am J Dig Dis. 1976; 21(3):263-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF01095900. View

14.

Chen T, Hung C, Huang A, Lii J, Chen R . The diameter of the common bile duct in an asymptomatic Taiwanese population: measurement by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. J Chin Med Assoc. 2012; 75(8):384-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2012.06.002. View

15.

Parulekar S . Ultrasound evaluation of common bile duct size. Radiology. 1979; 133(3 Pt 1):703-7. DOI: 10.1148/133.3.703. View

16.

Volzke H, Alte D, Schmidt C, Radke D, Lorbeer R, Friedrich N . Cohort profile: the study of health in Pomerania. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 40(2):294-307. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp394. View

17.

Venkatesh S, Welle C, Miller F, Jhaveri K, Ringe K, Eaton J . Reporting standards for primary sclerosing cholangitis using MRI and MR cholangiopancreatography: guidelines from MR Working Group of the International Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis Study Group. Eur Radiol. 2021; 32(2):923-937. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08147-7. View

18.

Chawla S, Trick W, Gilkey S, Attar B . Does cholecystectomy status influence the common bile duct diameter? A matched-pair analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2009; 55(4):1155-60. DOI: 10.1007/s10620-009-0836-y. View

19.

John U, Greiner B, Hensel E, Ludemann J, Piek M, Sauer S . Study of Health In Pomerania (SHIP): a health examination survey in an east German region: objectives and design. Soz Praventivmed. 2001; 46(3):186-94. DOI: 10.1007/BF01324255. View

20.

Govindan S, Tamrat N, Liu Z . Effect of Ageing on the Common Bile Duct Diameter. Dig Surg. 2021; 38(5-6):368-376. DOI: 10.1159/000519446. View