JUM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wachsberg, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by Lambert, W. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wachsberg, R. H.
Right arrow Articles by Lambert, W. C.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 16, Issue 12 807-810, Copyright © 1997 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine


JOURNAL ARTICLE

Echogenicity of hepatic versus portal vein walls revisited with histologic correlation

R. H. Wachsberg, E. A. Angyal, K. M. Klein, H. R. Kuo and W. C. Lambert
Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Newark, NJ 07103-2406, USA.

The portal vein wall typically is hyperechoic over a wide range of beam-vessel angles, whereas the hepatic vein wall is hyperechoic only when the incident beam and the vessel are perpendicular. This has been attributed to marked discrepancies in mural thickness, collagen content, or perivascular fat between portal and hepatic veins. We evaluated histologically the walls of portal and hepatic veins using three cadaveric livers. For vessels with luminal diameter above 2 to 3 mm, hepatic vein and portal vein wall thicknesses were similar such that portal vein walls were not more than 50% thicker than those of hepatic veins of comparable size. Hepatic vein walls were mostly composed of parallel, tightly packed collagen fibers. In contrast, portal vein walls were composed of loosely arrayed, nonparallel connective tissue fibers which were separated by multiple intervening spaces and only a minority of which were collagenous. Perivascular fat was not identified adjacent to intrahepatic vessels beyond the liver hilus. The marked differences in echogenicity between portal vein and hepatic vein walls typically observed at ultrasonography thus cannot be attributed to differences in mural thickness, collagen content, or perivascular fat between these vessels. Rather, the distinct composition of the hepatic vein wall renders it a specular reflector, which is hyperechoic only when the angle between the ultrasound beam and the vessel wall is close to 90 degrees, whereas the composition of the portal vein wall enables it to appear hyperechoic at a wide range of beam-vessel angles.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
T. S. Desser, D. Y. Sze, and R. B. Jeffrey
Imaging and Intervention in the Hepatic Veins
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2003; 180(6): 1583 - 1591.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.