Literature DB >> 12147836

MR cholangiography in symptomatic gallstones: diagnostic accuracy according to clinical risk group.

Joo Hee Kim1, Myeong-Jin Kim, Sung Il Park, Jae-Joon Chung, Si Young Song, Kyung Sik Kim, Hyung Sik Yoo, Jong Tae Lee, Ki Whang Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography in the detection of common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients with symptomatic gallstones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-shot half-Fourier MR cholangiographic images were obtained in 121 consecutive patients who were referred for MR cholangiography prior to cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. One radiologist interpreted the MR cholangiographic images without prior knowledge of laboratory test results or findings from examinations with other imaging modalities. Patients were retrospectively divided into three groups with high, moderate, and low risk (n = 70, 22, and 29, respectively) for CBD stones. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR cholangiography in the detection of CBD stones in each group were calculated. The accuracy of laboratory and sonographic findings in the identification of CBD stones was also calculated.
RESULTS: CBD stones were diagnosed in 49 (70%) of 70 patients in the high-risk group. One false-positive diagnosis was made, and two false-negative diagnoses were made. Of the 22 patients in the moderate-risk group, seven (32%) had CBD stones, and there was one false-positive and one false-negative diagnosis. In the low-risk group, CBD stones were correctly identified with MR cholangiography in one patient, and there was one false-positive diagnosis. A combination of positive laboratory and sonographic findings yielded a sensitivity of 98% but a specificity of only 34% if any unusual finding in any one of the tests was regarded as a positive finding.
CONCLUSION: MR cholangiography is highly accurate in the detection of CBD stones in all patients, regardless of the grade of risk, and should be considered in patients with a moderate to high risk of CBD stones before cholecystectomy. Copyright RSNA, 2002

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12147836     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2241011223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

1.  Optimal timing of MR sialography by use of a simple method of stimulating the salivary gland: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Shuhei Minami; Masayuki Suzuki; Akihiro Takemura; Yoshiki Takei; Suguru Arakawa; Yusuke Yoshizawa; Yukihiro Matsuura; Kazuhiro Kawahara
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-06-24

Review 2.  [Comparison of 2D and 3D sequences for MRCP. Clinical value of the different techniques].

Authors:  A M Wallnoefer; K A Herrmann; U Beuers; C J Zech; S Gourtsoyianni; M F Reiser; S O Schoenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Imaging findings of biliary and nonbiliary complications following laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jin-Young Choi; Myeong-Jin Kim; Mi-Suk Park; Joo Hee Kim; Joon Seok Lim; Young Taik Oh; Ki Whang Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Short- versus long-sequence MRI cholangiography for the preoperative imaging of the common bile duct in patients with cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  A Shamiyeh; E Lindner; J Danis; K Schwarzenlander; W Wayand
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  [Differential diagnoses of biliary tract diseases : Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  K Lampichler; M Scharitzer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of bile duct lithiasis.

Authors:  Damir Miletic; Miljenko Uravic; Marzena Mazur-Brbac; Davor Stimac; Davor Petranovic; Branko Sestan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.282

8.  MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eva C Kaltenthaler; Stephen J Walters; Jim Chilcott; Anthony Blakeborough; Yolanda Bravo Vergel; Steven Thomas
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2006-08-14       Impact factor: 1.930

9.  Diagnostic role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in evaluation of obstructive biliopathies and correlating it with final diagnosis and clinical profile of patients.

Authors:  Umesh Chandra Parashari; Sachin Khanduri; Samarjit Bhadury; Deepika Upadhyay; Kaushal Kishore
Journal:  J Nat Sci Biol Med       Date:  2015 Jan-Jun

10.  Factors and Outcomes Associated with MRCP Use prior to ERCP in Patients at High Risk for Choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Gobind Anand; Yuval A Patel; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Mouen A Khashab; Anne Marie Lennon; Eun Ji Shin; Marcia I Canto; Patrick I Okolo; Anthony N Kalloo; Vikesh K Singh
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.