title: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with SonoVue in the evaluation of postoperative complications in pediatric liver transplant recipients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the utility of contrast-enhanced sonography in the study of pediatric liver transplant recipients and its potential impact in reducing the need for invasive diagnostic procedures.
  
  
  METHODS
  From October 2002 to December 2003 we performed routine color Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound studies on 30 pediatric patients who had undergone liver transplantation. Findings indicative of complications were confirmed with invasive studies (angiography, computed tomography, and PTC).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Contrast-enhanced sonography correctly identified four of the five cases of hepatic artery thrombosis and all those involving the portal (n = 6) and hepatic vein (n = 3) thrombosis. It failed to identify one case of hepatic artery thrombosis characterized by collateral circulation arising from the phrenic artery and the single case of hepatic artery stenosis. The latter was more evident on color Doppler, which revealed a typical tardus parvus waveform. The use of contrast offered no significant advantages in the study of biliary complications although it did provide better visualization of bile leaks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Contrast-enhanced sonography improves diagnostic confidence and reduces the need for more invasive imaging studies in the postoperative follow-up of pediatric liver transplant recipients.
authors: U.S.C. Radiology, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Bonini
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Pezzotta
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Morzenti
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Agazzi
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Nani
keywords: Complications; Contrast-enhanced sonography; Pediatric liver transplantation; Split liver
references: Radiographics. 2002 Jan-Feb;22(1):141-59
references: 11796904
references: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004 Sep-Oct;27(5):491-4
references: 15383853
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Aug;181(2):467-74
references: 12876028
references: N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 12;321(15):1014-22
references: 2674716
references: Clin Radiol. 2002 May;57(5):377-83
references: 12014935
references: Clin Transplant. 2000 Jun;14(3):235-41
references: 10831082
references: Radiographics. 2001 Sep-Oct;21(5):1085-102
references: 11553818
references: Radiographics. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):53-63
references: 11158644
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Nov;165(5):1145-9
references: 7572493
references: Eur Radiol. 2004 Jan;14(1):21-30
references: 14530998
references: Transpl Int. 2000;13(5):372-8
references: 11052274
references: Transplant Proc. 2005 Sep;37(7):3174-6
references: 16213341
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jan;184(1):151-5
references: 15615966
references: Transplant Proc. 2005 Sep;37(7):3200-2
references: 16213348
references: Ann Surg. 1990 Sep;212(3):368-75; discussion 375-7
references: 2396888
references: Clin Radiol. 2002 Sep;57(9):789-99
references: 12384104
references: N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 19;321(16):1092-9
references: 2677722
references: Abdom Imaging. 2001 Nov-Dec;26(6):597-600
references: 11907724