Prospective study reveals thoracic duct dimensions and steady flow rates in healthy adults, providing quantitative baseline reference values for dynamic MR lymphangiography.
Objectives To characterize central lymphatic anatomy and physiological flow dynamics in healthy volunteers using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR lymphangiography (DCMRL), thereby providing preliminary DCMRL-specific quantitative characterization of central lymphatic anatomy and flow dynamics. Materials and Methods In this prospective single-center study, healthy adult volunteers underwent DCMRL between April 2023 and March 2024. Thoracic duct (TD) morphology, outlet anatomy, length, width, and tortuosity were assessed on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging, with additional width measurements on T2-weighted imaging. Quantitative flow analysis was performed using time-resolved contrast-enhanced sequences. Descriptive statistics, paired and independent t-tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients were applied. Results Sixteen participants (6 male, 10 female; median age 27 years, range 19-44) were included. The thoracic duct (TD) was visualized in all on T2-weighted imaging and in 14 on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging. The cisterna chyli was visible in 13, and the TD outlet was left-sided in 15, with bilateral outlets in one. Fourteen TDs were tubular, with partial duplication in 2. On contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (n=14), mean TD width was 4.43 ± 0.76 mm. On T2-weighted imaging, the corresponding mean TD width was 4.13 ± 0.25 mm. The mean TD length was 232 ± 20 mm, with a tortuosity index of 1.04 ± 0.02. Quantitative flow analysis in 13 participants revealed a steady flow pattern with a mean flow rate of 0.63 ± 0.41 mL/min. Conclusion This prospective study characterizes central lymphatic anatomy and flow physiology in healthy volunteers using DCMRL, highlighting modest physiological variability and a gradual increase in lymphatic contrast propagation, providing preliminary interpretive context for DCMRL interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schaik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: