Literature DB >> 10457316

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography accurately predicts the presence or absence of choledocholithiasis.

S N Hochwald1, B A Dobryansky M, N M Rofsky, K S Naik, P Shamamian, G Coppa, S G Marcus.   

Abstract

Accurate common bile duct (CBD) imaging in patients with biliary calculi is an important determinant of specific therapy. Noninvasive methods to evaluate calculi in the CBD have limited accuracy and rely mainly on ultrasonography and computed tomography. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a new noninvasive modality available to evaluate the biliary system. This study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of MRCP in predicting the presence or absence of CBD stones in patients at increased risk for choledocholithiasis. The medical records of 48 patients with a final diagnosis of biliary calculous disease undergoing MRCP between November 1995 and April 1997 were retrospectively reviewed. Three groups were identified: choledocholithiasis (n = 19), gallstone pancreatitis (n 5 11), and uncomplicated cholelithiasis (n = 18). In all patients the presence or absence of CBD calculi, as determined by MRCP, was correlated with the final diagnosis obtained from endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (n = 19), intraoperative cholangiography (n = 6), CBD exploration (n = 13), or clinical follow-up (n = 10). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRCP were determined. The major clinical indications for MRCP in the 48 patients ware abnormal liver function tests followed by hyperamylasemia. Twenty patients were diagnosed with CBD stones and 28 were not. MRCP correctly predicted the presence of CBD stones in 19 of 20 patients and failed to detect CBD stones in one patient with gallstone pancreatitis. MRCP incorrectly predicted the presence of CBD stones in 3 of 28 patients ultimately found to have gallstones and no CBD stones. MRCP correctly predicted the absence of CBD stones in the other 25 patients including 10 patients with gallstone pancreatitis. Overall, MRCP had a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 89%, and an accuracy of 92%. MRCP is an accurate, noninvasive test for evaluating the CBD duct for the presence or absence of calculi in patients suspected of having CBD stones. Our data support the use of MRCP in the preoperative evaluation of these patients as findings may influence therapeutic decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10457316     DOI: 10.1016/s1091-255x(98)80059-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.267


  28 in total

1.  Biliary obstruction: evaluation with three-dimensional MR cholangiography.

Authors:  K Morimoto; M Shimoi; T Shirakawa; Y Aoki; S Choi; Y Miyata; K Hara
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Ultrasound of the common bile duct in patients undergoing cholecystectomy.

Authors:  M A Stott; P A Farrands; P B Guyer; K C Dewbury; J J Browning; R Sutton
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 0.910

3.  Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: comparison with surgical exploration and ERCP.

Authors:  L Palazzo; P P Girollet; M Salmeron; C Silvain; G Roseau; J M Canard; S Chaussade; D Couturier; J A Paolaggi
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 4.  NIH Consensus conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-02-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  P B Cotton
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: value of MR cholangiography.

Authors:  L Guibaud; P M Bret; C Reinhold; M Atri; A N Barkun
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Statistical value of various clinical parameters in predicting the presence of choledochal stones.

Authors:  R Reiss; A A Deutsch; I Nudelman; I Kott
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1984-09

8.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  J A Soto; M A Barish; E K Yucel; D Siegenberg; J T Ferrucci; R Chuttani
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Ultrasonography, CT, and ERCP in the diagnosis of choledochal stones.

Authors:  P Pasanen; K Partanen; P Pikkarainen; E Alhava; A Pirinen; E Janatuinen
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 10.  Bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era. Is preoperative sphincterotomy necessary?

Authors:  E H Phillips; M Liberman; B J Carroll; M J Fallas; R J Rosenthal; J R Hiatt
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1995-08
View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Biliary tract surgery.

Authors:  S A Ahrendt
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  1999-04

2.  Percutaneous ultrasound-guided cholangiography using microbubbles to evaluate the dilated biliary tract: initial experience.

Authors:  Zhou Luyao; Xie Xiaoyan; Xu Huixiong; Xu Zuo-Feng; Liu Guang-Jian; Lu Ming-de
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-24       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Early ductal decompression versus conservative management for gallstone pancreatitis with ampullary obstruction: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Juan M Acosta; Namir Katkhouda; Khaldoun A Debian; Susan G Groshen; Denice D Tsao-Wei; Thomas V Berne
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Wen Chen; Jing-Jia Mo; Li Lin; Chao-Qun Li; Jian-Feng Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Gender and gallstone disease.

Authors:  Gottfried Novacek
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2006-10

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography accurately predicts resectability of pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  S N Hochwald; N M Rofsky; M Dobryansky; P Shamamian; S G Marcus
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Vanja Giljaca; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Yemisi Takwoingi; David Higgie; Goran Poropat; Davor Štimac; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-02-26

8.  The role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the management of patients with gallstone pancreatitis.

Authors:  Martin A Makary; Mark D Duncan; John W Harmon; Paul D Freeswick; Jeffrey S Bender; Mark Bohlman; Thomas H Magnuson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Clinical models are inaccurate in predicting bile duct stones in situ for patients with gallbladder.

Authors:  B Topal; S Fieuws; K Tomczyk; R Aerts; W Van Steenbergen; C Verslype; F Penninckx
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Accessory gallbladder: a new anatomical variation arising from both left and right hepatic ducts.

Authors:  S Hassan; A L Young; M Farooq; D Pai; M Gough
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.891

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.