Literature DB >> 16941091

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

S Schmidt1, P Chevallier, S Novellas, E Gelsi, G Vanbiervliet, A Tran, P Schnyder, J N Bruneton.   

Abstract

This prospective study compares repetitive thick-slab single-shot projection magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the detection of choledocholithiasis. Fifty-seven consecutive patients (36 women, mean age 61) referred for suspected choledocholithiasis underwent MRCP, followed by EUS. Each procedure was performed by different operators blinded to the results of the other investigation. MR technique included a turbo spin-echo T2-weighted axial sequence with selective fat saturation (SPIR/TSE, TE=70 ms, TR=1,600 ms), followed by coronal dynamic MRCP. The same thick-slab slice was sequentially acquired 12 times as breath-hold single-shot projection imaging (SSh, TE=900 ms, TE=8,000 ms) centred on the common bile duct (CBD). Two experienced radiologists independently and blindly evaluated MR images for the detection of CBD stones. Their inter-observer agreement kappa was determined. Secondly, the two observers read MR images in consensus again. CBD stones were demonstrated in 18 out of 57 patients (31.6 %) and confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP, n=17) or intraoperative cholangiography (n=1). Clinical follow-up served as the "gold standard" in patients with negative results without following invasive procedure (n=28). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value for MRCP resulting from consensus reading were 94.9%, 94.4%, 94.7%, 97.4% and 89.5%, respectively. Corresponding values of EUS were 97.4%, 94.4%, 96.5%, 97.4% and 94.4%. Inter-observer agreement kappa was 0.81. Repetitive thick-slab single-shot projection MRCP is an accurate non-invasive imaging modality for suspected choledocholithiasis and should be increasingly used to select those patients who require a subsequent therapeutic procedure, namely ERCP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16941091     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0380-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  37 in total

1.  Detection of choledocholithiasis with MR cholangiography: comparison of three-dimensional fast spin-echo and single- and multisection half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement sequences.

Authors:  J A Soto; M A Barish; O Alvarez; S Medina
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Christophe Aubé; Benoit Delorme; Thierry Yzet; Pascal Burtin; Jérome Lebigot; Patrick Pessaux; Catherine Gondry-Jouet; Jean Boyer; Christine Caron
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  The role of ERCP in choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  S K Lo; J Chen
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr

4.  Breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography using a HASTE sequence: comparison of single-slice and multislice acquisition techniques.

Authors:  O Ernst; M Calvo; G Sergent; D Mizrahi; F Carpentier
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  P M Bret; C Reinhold
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography.

Authors:  Shintaro Kondo; Hiroyuki Isayama; Masaaki Akahane; Nobuo Toda; Naoki Sasahira; Yosuke Nakai; Natsuyo Yamamoto; Kenji Hirano; Yutaka Komatsu; Minoru Tada; Haruhiko Yoshida; Takao Kawabe; Kuni Ohtomo; Masao Omata
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP.

Authors:  K Menon; A N Barkun; J Romagnuolo; G Friedman; S N Mehta; C Reinhold; P M Bret
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Approach of suspected common bile duct stones: endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  P Deprez
Journal:  Acta Gastroenterol Belg       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.316

9.  Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  C D Becker; M Grossholz; M Becker; G Mentha; R de Peyer; F Terrier
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Choledocholithiasis: evaluation of MR cholangiography for diagnosis.

Authors:  C Reinhold; P Taourel; P M Bret; G A Cortas; S N Mehta; A N Barkun; L Wang; F Tafazoli
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Urgent MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) of acute cholecystitis and related complications: diagnostic role and spectrum of imaging findings.

Authors:  Massimo Tonolini; Anna Ravelli; Chiara Villa; Roberto Bianco
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2012-03-25

2.  Comparison of different MRCP techniques for the depiction of biliary complications after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Sonja Kinner; Alexander Dechêne; Susanne C Ladd; Thomas Zöpf; Evelin Maldonado de Dechêne; Guido Gerken; Thomas C Lauenstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  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

4.  Gradient- and spin-echo (GRASE) MR imaging: a long-existing technology that may find wide applications in modern era.

Authors:  Mei-Lan Chu; Cheng-Ping Chien; Wen-Chau Wu; Hsiao-Wen Chung
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-09

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison of two- and three-dimensional sequences for assessment of malignant biliary obstruction.

Authors:  Jin-Young Choi; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Jae Young Lee; Se Hyung Kim; Ki Whang Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review.

Authors:  Vinicius Leite De Castro; Eduardo Gh Moura; Dalton M Chaves; Wanderley M Bernardo; Sergio E Matuguma; Everson L A Artifon
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.628

9.  Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for secondary common bile duct stones compared with laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration.

Authors:  Peixin Li; Zhongtao Zhang; Jianshe Li; Lan Jin; Wei Han; Jie Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2014-06-04

10.  EUS assessment for intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis after a negative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Diana Wee; Stephanie Izard; Gregory Grimaldi; Kara L Raphael; Tai-Ping Lee; Arvind J Trindade
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.