OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of MR imaging for diseases of the small intestine, emphasizing a comparison with CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients who underwent both CT and MR imaging using FLASH 2D and HASTE sequences were analyzed. All patients had various small bowel diseases with variable association of peritoneal lesions. We compared the detectabilities of CT and MR imaging using different MR pulse sequences. The capability for analyzing the characteristics of small intestinal disease was also compared. RESULTS: MR imaging was nearly equal to CT for detecting intraluminal or peritoneal masses, lesions in the bowel and mesentery, and small bowel obstruction, but was definitely inferior for detecting omental lesions. The most successful MR imaging sequence was HASTE for demonstrating bowel wall thickening, coronal FLASH 2D for mesenteric lesions, and axial FLASH 2D for omental lesions. MR imaging yielded greater information than CT in six of 12 inflammatory bowel diseases, while it was equal to CT in six of seven neoplasms and inferior in five of seven mesenteric ischemia. In determining the primary causes of 15 intestinal obstructions, MR imaging was correct in 11 (73%) and CT in nine (60%) patients. CONCLUSION: MR imaging can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool for patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease, small intestinal neoplasm or obstruction.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of MR imaging for diseases of the small intestine, emphasizing a comparison with CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients who underwent both CT and MR imaging using FLASH 2D and HASTE sequences were analyzed. All patients had various small bowel diseases with variable association of peritoneal lesions. We compared the detectabilities of CT and MR imaging using different MR pulse sequences. The capability for analyzing the characteristics of small intestinal disease was also compared. RESULTS: MR imaging was nearly equal to CT for detecting intraluminal or peritoneal masses, lesions in the bowel and mesentery, and small bowel obstruction, but was definitely inferior for detecting omental lesions. The most successful MR imaging sequence was HASTE for demonstrating bowel wall thickening, coronal FLASH 2D for mesenteric lesions, and axial FLASH 2D for omental lesions. MR imaging yielded greater information than CT in six of 12 inflammatory bowel diseases, while it was equal to CT in six of seven neoplasms and inferior in five of seven mesenteric ischemia. In determining the primary causes of 15 intestinal obstructions, MR imaging was correct in 11 (73%) and CT in nine (60%) patients. CONCLUSION: MR imaging can serve as an alternative diagnostic tool for patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease, small intestinal neoplasm or obstruction.
Authors: H K Ha; E H Lee; C H Lim; Y M Shin; Y K Jeong; K H Yoon; M G Lee; Y I Min; Y H Auh Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R M Patten; S K Lo; J J Phillips; S C Bowman; G M Glazer; S D Wall; J G Bova; R D Harris; R L Wheat; C D Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H K Ha; J S Kim; M S Lee; H J Lee; Y K Jeong; P N Kim; M G Lee; K W Kim; M Y Kim; Y H Auh Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P R Ros; R M Steinman; G M Torres; S S Burton; J L Panaccione; D C Rappaport; S P McGorray Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1991-10 Impact factor: 3.959