A Comparison of the Celiacomesenteric Trunk in the Caribbean with Global Prevalence Calculated by a Systematic Review

Table 2

Analysis of population-based studies evaluating variants of the celiacomesenteric trunk.

Country	Author	Method	Study sample	Conventional branches	CMT variants	Complete CMT		Incomplete CMT
						Celiac-bi-mesenteric	“Classic” CMT	G-M	S-M	H-M	H–S-M	G-S-M	H-G-M
France	Piquand et al., 1910 [15]	Cadaver	50	41	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
France	Rio branco, 1912 [16]	Cadaver	50	45	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
USA	Lipshutz et al., 1917 [1]	Cadaver	83	62	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
USA	Eaton et al., 1917 [17]	Cadaver	206	186	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Japan	Adachi et al., 1928 [18]	Cadaver	252	218	10^E	0	6	0	0	1	3	0	0
USA	Michels et al., 1955 [9]	Cadaver	200	110	32^E	0	0	0	1	31^E,5	0	0	0
USA	Nelson et al., 1988 [19]	Cadaver	50	12	13^E	0	3	0	0	10	0	0	0
Japan	Shoumura et al., 1991 [20]	Cadaver	450	408	12^E	0	5	0	0	5	2	0	0
U.S.A.	Hiatt J. et al., 1994 [21]	Transplant operations	1,000	757	15^E	0	0	0	0	15	0	0	0
Australia	Jones et al., 2001 [22]	Transplant dissection	180	164	30^E	0	3	0	0	27	0	0	0
Japan	Nakamura et al., 2003 [23]	Cadaver	250	NR	3^E	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0
Italy	Ferrari et al., 2007 [24]	Imaging (CT)	60	34	6^E	0	1	0	0	5	0	0	0
Italy	Ieezi et al., 2008 [25]	Imaging (CT)	524	378	2^E	0	0	0	NR	NR	2	0	0
Japan	Chen et al., 2009 [26]	Cadaver	974	875	49^E	0	7	0	0	33	7	2	0
South Korea	Song et al., 2010 [27]	Imaging (CT)	5002	4,457	232^E	0	53	1	9	132	34	3	0
Russia	Egorov et al., 2010 [28]	Imaging (CT)	350	197	58^E	0	0	0	0	58^E,4	0	0	0
Poland	Kornafel et al., 2010 [29]	Imaging (CT)	201	192	4^E	0	3	0	0	1	0	0	0
Japan	Natsume et al., 2011 [30]	Imaging (CT)	175	159	9^E	0	1	0	0	5	1	1	1
Spain	Villa et al., 2012 [31]	Imaging (CT)	100	85	15^E	0	1	0	0	14^E,2	0	0	0
Japan	Miyaki et al., 2012 [32]	Cadaver	378	NR	8^E	0	2	0	0	6	0	0	0
Romania	Matusz et al., 2012 [33]	Review	10,750	9,751	73	0	73	NR^1	NR^1	NR^1	NR^1	NR^1	NR^1
Greece	Panagouli et al., 2013 [10]	Systematic review	12,196	10,906	446^E	1	93	0	0	297/9829^E,7	49	6	0
China	Mu et al., 2103 [34]	Imaging (CT)	102	60	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Serbia	Ognjanovic et al., 2014 [35]	Imaging (CT)	150	117	19^E	0	4	0	0	15	0	0	0
China	Wang et al., 2014 [36]	Imaging (CT)	1500	1,347	135^E	0	23	0	18	67	26	1	0
Romania	Iacob et al., 2014 [37]	Imaging (CT)	5442	4,942	30^E	0	23	0	0	NR	7		0
China	Huang et al., 2015 [38]	Imaging (CT)	238	220	10^E	0	2	0	2	6	0	0	0
India	Sharma et al., 2015 [39]	Imaging (CT)	80	66	3	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0
India	Babu et al., 2015 [11]	Imaging (CT)	682	548	19^E	0	3	1	0	12^E,3	3	0	0
Poland	Torres et al., 2015 [40]	Imaging (CT)	1569	1455	72^E	0	8	0	0	64	0	0	0
Japan	Yuasa et al., 2016 [41]	Imaging (CT)	279	253	8^E	0	3	0	1	3	1	0	0
Egypt	Osman et al., 2016 [42]	Imaging (CT)	1000	905	142^E	0	6	0	0	136	0	0	0
Iran	Farghadani et al., 2016 [12]	Imaging (CT)	607	308	72^E	0	4	0	2	66^E,6	0	0	0
Turkey	Alsaner et al., 2017 [43]	Imaging (CT)	1000	890	4^E	0	1	NR	NR	NR	3	0	0
Pakistan	Khan et al., 2017 [44]	Imaging (CT)	160	139	2^E	0	1	NR	NR	NR	1	0	0
Turkey	Caliskan et al., 2018 [45]	Imaging (CT)	174	157	10^E	0	3	0	1	5	1	0	0
Mexico	Pinal-Garcia et al., 2018 [13]	Cadaver	140	61	4^E	0	0	0	1	3	0	0	0
Romania	Bordei et al., 2019 [46]	Imaging (CT)	2220	NR	12	0	12	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
China	Tang et al., 2019 [47]	Imaging (CT)	5580	5031	475^E	0	96	0	67	248	57	4	3
China	Mao et al., 2019 [48]	Imaging (CT)	2500	2243	225^E	0	85	0	27	112	1	0	0
India	Ramadevi et al., 2020 [49]	Cadaver	25	21	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Czech Republic	Whitley et al., 2020 [14]	Meta-analysis	17,391	15,639	620^E	0	125	4	30	378	78	5	0
Global prevalence	Global		74,320	63,439/71,472 (88.8%)	2,886/74,320 (3.88%)	2/74,320 (0.003%)	659/74,320 (0.89%)	6/60,190 (0.01%)	159/59,666 (0.27%)	1,758/54,224 (3.24%)	276/61,350 (0.45%)	22/61,350 (0.04%)	4/61,350 (0.007%)
Caribbean	Cawich et al.	Imaging (CT)	665	649 (97.6%)	16/665 (2.41%)	0	3 (0.45%)	0	0	12 (1.8%)	1 (0.15%)	0	0
P value	Caribbean vs. global				0.054	—	0.2985	—	—	0.0352	0.3798	—	-

E = extrapolated from raw data and/or published images. 1 = these authors reported an “incomplete CMT” in 63 (0.59%) cases but did not clearly define the meaning of this term. 2 = CHA from SMA (3) + accessory RHA from SMA (2) + replaced RHA from SMA (9). 3 = individual cases included CHA from SMA and LGA/SA from CT (9) + CHA from SMA and LGA/SA arising directly from the aorta (1) + replaced RHA from SMA (2). 4 = individual cases included CHA from SMA (9) + replaced RHA from SMA (49). 5 = individual cases included CHA from SMA (9) + replaced RHA from SMA (22). 6 = individual cases included CHA from SMA (8) + RHA from SMA (58). 7 = individual cases included splenogastric and hepato-mesenteric trunk (186) + splenogastric with CHA arising from SMA (111)