Rh. Wachsberg et al., ECHOGENICITY OF HEPATIC VERSUS PORTAL-VEIN WALLS REVISITED WITH HISTOLOGIC CORRELATION, Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 16(12), 1997, pp. 807-810
The portal vein wall typically is hyperechoic over a wide range of bea
m-vessel angles, whereas the hepatic vein wall is hyperechoic only whe
n the incident beam and the vessel are perpendicular. This has been at
tributed to marked discrepancies in mural thickness, collagen content,
or perivascular fat between portal and hepatic veins. We evaluated hi
stologically the walls of portal and hepatic veins using three cadaver
ic livers. For vessels with luminal diameter above 2 to 3 mm, hepatic
vein and portal vein wall thicknesses were similar such that portal ve
in 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 c
omposed 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 t
o intrahepatic vessels beyond the liver hilus. The marked differences
in echogenicity between portal vein and hepatic vein walls typically o
bserved 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 ren
ders it a specular reflector, which is hyperechoic only when the angle
between the ultrasound beam and the vessel wall is close to 90 degree
s, whereas the composition of the portal vein wall enables it to appea
r hyperechoic at a wide range of beam-vessel angles.