Literature DB >> 15615951

MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: a prospective, comparative study.

Christophe Aubé1, Benoit Delorme, Thierry Yzet, Pascal Burtin, Jérome Lebigot, Patrick Pessaux, Catherine Gondry-Jouet, Jean Boyer, Christine Caron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sonography for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients with a mild to moderate clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria included acute pancreatitis, subclinical jaundice, and clinical features of common bile duct stone migration. Radial endoscopic sonography and MR cholangiopancreatography with the single-shot fast spin-echo technique were performed a maximum of 48 hr apart. The gold-standard diagnosis was obtained with ERCP (n = 20) or intraoperative cholangiography (n = 14) if the results of endoscopic sonography or MR cholangiopancreatography were abnormal or if a cholecystectomy was performed, or by clinical and biochemical follow-up (n = 11) if the results of endoscopic sonography and MR cholangiopancreatography were normal.
RESULTS: The final diagnosis was common bile duct stones in 16 patients, malignant obstructions in four, and another biliary disease in two (lithiasis migration aspect with papillary edema); 23 patients had no biliary disease. The sensitivity and specificity of MR cholangiopancreatography were, respectively, 90.5% and 87.5% for etiologic diagnosis and 87.5% and 96.6% for the detection of common bile duct stones. The corresponding values for endoscopic sonography were 86.4% and 91.3% for etiologic diagnosis and 93.8% and 96.6% for visualization of choledocholithiasis. Accuracy did not significantly differ between the techniques.
CONCLUSION: In cases of mild to moderate suspicion of choledocholithiasis, the accuracies of endoscopic sonography and MR cholangiopancreatography are similar. Because MR cholangiopancreatography is noninvasive, it may be preferred for this indication.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15615951     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  21 in total

1.  Choledocholithiasis: repetitive thick-slab single-shot projection magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography versus endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  S Schmidt; P Chevallier; S Novellas; E Gelsi; G Vanbiervliet; A Tran; P Schnyder; J N Bruneton
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Alanine transaminase rather than abdominal ultrasound alone is an important investigation to justify cholecystectomy in patients presenting with acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Kerry Anderson; Lisa A Brown; Philip Daniel; Saxon J Connor
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 3.  [Diagnosis and interventional therapy for ductal gallstones].

Authors:  H-J Brambs; M Hoffmann; S Pauls
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Lisa M Brown; Stanley J Rogers; John P Cello; Karen J Brasel; John M Inadomi
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2011-03-27       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  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

Review 6.  Use of advanced imaging techniques during visits to emergency departments--implications, costs, patient benefits/risks.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Dick; Dinesh Varma; Elika Kashef; John Curtis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary pathology.

Authors:  S Palmucci; L A Mauro; S La Scola; S Incarbone; G Bonanno; P Milone; A Russo; G C Ettorre
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 3.469

8.  Role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of biliary disease.

Authors:  Humoud Al-Dhuhli
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2009-12-19

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

10.  Evaluation of the biliary and pancreatic system with 2D SSFSE, breathhold 3D FRFSE and respiratory-triggered 3D FRFSE sequences.

Authors:  S Palmucci; L A Mauro; M Coppolino; A G Musumeci; P V Foti; P Milone; G C Ettorre
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.