Literature DB >> 11158641

Pitfalls in MR cholangiopancreatographic interpretation.

H Irie1, H Honda, T Kuroiwa, K Yoshimitsu, H Aibe, K Shinozaki, K Masuda.   

Abstract

Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is widely used in the evaluation of pancreatobiliary disorders. However, numerous related pitfalls may simulate or mask pancreatobiliary disease. Maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reconstructed images completely obscure small filling defects and may demonstrate respiratory motion artifacts. T2 weighting may vary with different MR imaging sequences and influence MRCP findings. Incomplete imaging may create confusion regarding ductal anatomy or disease. Furthermore, MRCP yields only static images and thus may fail to depict various anomalies. Limited spatial resolution makes differentiation between benign and malignant strictures with MRCP alone extremely difficult. Susceptibility artifacts may be caused by metallic foreign bodies or gastric-duodenal gas. Fluid accumulation may produce a pseudolesion or pseudostricture, although changing the imaging angle or section thickness may be helpful. Pneumobilia may be misinterpreted as bile duct stones, and true stones may be overlooked. Pulsatile vascular compression can cause pseudo-obstruction of the bile duct. Use of both source and MIP reconstructed images obtained from different angles can help avoid cystic duct-related pitfalls. Repeat MRCP or conventional MR imaging can help avoid pitfalls related to the periampullary region. Segmental collapse of the normal main pancreatic duct may be misinterpreted as stenosis, but administration of secretin is helpful. An awareness of these pitfalls and possible solutions is crucial for avoiding misinterpretation of MRCP images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11158641     DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.21.1.g01ja0523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  23 in total

Review 1.  CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree.

Authors:  T Hyodo; S Kumano; F Kushihata; M Okada; M Hirata; T Tsuda; Y Takada; T Mochizuki; T Murakami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  MR liver imaging and cholangiography in the presence of surgical metallic clips at 1.5 and 3 Tesla.

Authors:  Elmar M Merkle; Brian M Dale; John Thomas; Erik K Paulson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Pneumobilia: where to look for on hepatic MR imaging?

Authors:  Elmar M Merkle
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Assessment of a postoperative anastomotic stricture following correction surgery of a type IVa choledochal cyst using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography.

Authors:  Evangelos Perdikakis; Evangelia G Chryssou; Mairi Koulentaki; Elias Kouroumalis; Apostolos Karantanas
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-01

5.  Preoperative evaluation of the cystic duct for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparison of navigator-gated prospective acquisition correction- and conventional respiratory-triggered techniques at free-breathing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Ryo Itatani; Tomohiro Namimoto; Hiroo Kajihara; Akira Yoshimura; Kazuhiro Katahira; Jiro Nasu; Ikuo Matsushita; Fumi Sakamoto; Masafumi Kidoh; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with GRASE sequence at 3.0T: does it improve image quality and acquisition time as compared with 3D TSE?

Authors:  Morikatsu Yoshida; Takeshi Nakaura; Taihei Inoue; Shota Tanoue; Sentaro Takada; Daisuke Utsunomiya; Shota Tsumagari; Kazunori Harada; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Thread sign in biliary intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: a novel specific finding for MRI.

Authors:  Gil-Sun Hong; Jae Ho Byun; Jin Hee Kim; Hyoung Jung Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Seung-Mo Hong; Moon-Gyu Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Low conjunction of the cystic duct with the common bile duct: does it correlate with the formation of common bile duct stones?

Authors:  I Tsitouridis; G Lazaraki; C Papastergiou; E Pagalos; G Germanidis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography: comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA and Mn-DPDP in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  K Bae; J B Na; D S Choi; J M Cho; H C Choi; K-N Jeon; M J Park; H Y Choi; J E Kim; S H Chung
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  The efficacy of early scheduled follow-up endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after common bile duct stone removal.

Authors:  Jin Nam Kim; Hong Sik Lee; Sung Woo Jung; Ja Seol Koo; Hyung Joon Yim; Sang Woo Lee; Jae Hyun Choi; Chang Duck Kim; Ho Sang Ryu
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 4.519

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.