You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 9
  • Definition of age-dependent reference values for the diameter of the common bile duct and pancreatic duct on MRCP: still needed further discussion

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Definition of age-dependent reference values for the diameter of the common bile duct and pancreatic duct on MRCP: still needed further discussion
  1. Fan Wang1,
  2. Lei Peng2,
  3. Yu Liu1,3
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
  2. 2 College of Basic Medicine Sciences, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
  3. 3 Jinling Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Yu Liu, Jinling Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; yuliu2919{at}163.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2023-331163

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with great interest the recently published study by Beyer et al, which established and quantified age-dependent reference values for common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct (PD) diameters in a population-based study.1 The study is valuable, yet some points require further clarifications.

    First, medication usage as an important factor affecting CBD and PD diameters was not adequately analysed in this study. Several studies have pointed out that medications such as opioid, calcium antagonists and nitroglycerine can cause CBD or PD dilatation.2–4 A prospective study showed that CBD diameter was significantly higher in users of opium than controls (mean±SD: 5.54±1.95 vs 4.74±1.34 mm, p<0.001) and this difference was noted with all opium types.4 The Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) data have shown that 1.1% participants were opioid users.5 In addition, more than …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors FW: conception, analysis of data and manuscript preparation. LP: analysis of data and manuscript preparation. YL: data curation, review of the draft and final approval. All the authors approved the final version of the letter.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.