Effect of intravenous morphine comedication on bile duct visualization, diameter and volume applying intravenous CT cholangiography in a porcine liver model

1Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background/Aims: To determine whether intravenous morphine comedication improves bile duct visualization, diameter and/or volume applying intravenous CT cholangiography in a porcine liver model. Methods: 12 Landrace pigs underwent intravenous CT cholangiography. Eight minutes after initiation of the contrast material infusion, either morphine sulfate (n = 6 animals) or normal saline (n = 6 animals) was administered. Eighteen consecutive CT scans of the liver were acquired with 2-min intervals starting with initiation of the contrast material infusion. Maximum bile duct visualization scores, diameters and volumes and time to maximum bile duct visualization scores, diameters and volumes were determined. Results: Maximum bile duct visualization scores, diameters and volumes and time to maximum bile duct visualization scores, diameters and volumes were not significantly different when the morphine group was compared to the normal saline group. Maximum bile duct visualization scores ranged between 4.00 ± 0.00 and 2.83 ± 1.47. Maximum bile duct diameters ranged between 6.77 ± 0.40 and 2.10 ± 1.35 mm. Maximum bile duct volume was 16.41 ± 7.33 ml in the morphine group and 16.79 ± 5.65 ml in the normal saline group. Conclusion: Intravenous morphine comedication failed to improve bile duct visualization and to increase bile duct diameter and volume applying CT cholangiography. Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sommer, C. M., Schwarzwaelder, C. B., Bellemann, N., Stampfl, U., Stiller, W., Schindera, S. T., … Radeleff, B. A. (2010). Effect of intravenous morphine comedication on bile duct visualization, diameter and volume applying intravenous CT cholangiography in a porcine liver model. European Surgical Research, 45(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000318163

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free