Literature DB >> 17899102

Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn's disease.

Gabriele Masselli1, Emanuele Casciani, Elisabetta Polettini, Gianfranco Gualdi.   

Abstract

To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis with duodenal intubation with MRI after drinking oral contrast agent only (MR enterography) with conventional enteroclysis (conv-E) as reference standard in patients with Crohn's disease. Forty consecutive patients (22 males and 18 females; mean age 36; range 16-74 years) with proven Crohn's disease underwent conv-E and MR imaging. Twenty-two patients underwent MR enteroclysis with intubation (MRE) and 18 underwent MR-enterography (MR per OS). Two radiologists reached a consensus about the following imaging findings: luminal distension and visualization of superficial mucosal, mural and mesenteric abnormalities. Standard descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank sum test were used. Statistical significance was inferred at P < 0.05. There was no significant difference in the adequacy of luminal distention between the MRE and conv-E (P = 0.08), and both were statistically superior in comparison to MR per OS in the distension of the jejunum (P < 0.01) and less significant at the ileum and terminal ileum levels (P < 0.05). MRE and conv-E were comparable for the accuracy of superficial mucosal abnormalities; meanwhile conv-E compared with MR per OS was statistically superior (P < 0.01). MRE compared with MR per OS was statistically better when visualizing superficial abnormalities (P < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found in assessing the diagnostic efficacy between MR examinations for the depiction of mural stenosis (P = 0.105) and fistulae (P = 0.67). The number of detected mesenteric findings was significantly higher with both MRE and MR per OS compared to conv-E (P < 0.01). MRE can serve as the diagnostic procedure for initially evaluating patients suspected of having Crohn's disease. MR per OS may have a role in patients that refuse or have failed intubation and also for follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17899102     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0763-2

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  MR enteroclysis: the future of small-bowel imaging?

Authors:  D D Maglinte; E S Siegelman; F M Kelvin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Polyethylene glycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging of the small bowel.

Authors:  A Laghi; I Carbone; C Catalano; R Iannaccone; P Paolantonio; I Baeli; S Trenna; R Passariello
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications.

Authors:  Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis; Nickolas Papanikolaou; John Grammatikakis; Panos Prassopoulos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis in suspected small bowel disease.

Authors:  Stefan K Gölder; Andreas G Schreyer; Esther Endlicher; Stefan Feuerbach; Jürgen Schölmerich; Frank Kullmann; Johannes Seitz; Gerhard Rogler; Hans Herfarth
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-04-22       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  New diagnostic imaging tools for inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  B A Mackalski; C N Bernstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Assessment of Crohn's disease in the small bowel: Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis with conventional enteroclysis.

Authors:  Gabriele Masselli; Emanuele Casciani; Elisabetta Polettini; Silvia Lanciotti; Luca Bertini; Gianfranco Gualdi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-06-24       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn's disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysis.

Authors:  Anne Negaard; Vemund Paulsen; Leiv Sandvik; Audun Elnaes Berstad; Arne Borthne; Kirsti Try; Idar Lygren; Tryggve Storaas; Nils-Einar Klow
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-05-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  MRI in Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Karin Horsthuis; Cristina Lavini; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Small bowel MRI: comparison of a polyethylene glycol preparation and water as oral contrast media.

Authors:  Rohit R Sood; Ilse Joubert; Hilary Franklin; Terence Doyle; David J Lomas
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: noninvasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy--feasibility study.

Authors:  Peter B Wold; Joel G Fletcher; C Daniel Johnson; William J Sandborn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  52 in total

Review 1.  MRI in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Michael S Gee; Mukesh G Harisinghani
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  MRI in Crohn's disease--current and future clinical applications.

Authors:  Gionata Fiorino; Cristiana Bonifacio; Alberto Malesci; Luca Balzarini; Silvio Danese
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  MR motility imaging in Crohn's disease improves lesion detection compared with standard MR imaging.

Authors:  Johannes M Froehlich; Christian Waldherr; Christoforos Stoupis; S Mehmet Erturk; Michael A Patak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  MR enterography versus capsule endoscopy in paediatric patients with suspected Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Emanuele Casciani; Gabriele Masselli; Giovanni Di Nardo; Elisabetta Polettini; Luca Bertini; Salvatore Oliva; Irene Floriani; Salvatore Cucchiara; Gianfranco Gualdi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Enterclysis versus enterography: the unsettled issue.

Authors:  Michael R Torkzad; Thomas C Lauenstein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Enteroclysis dilemma?

Authors:  Alessandro Sias; Carola Politi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Outcomes of computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography in clinical practice of inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Niraj S Patel; Suresh Pola; Ramya Muralimohan; G Y Zou; Cynthia Santillan; Derek Patel; Barrett G Levesque; William J Sandborn
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Diagnostic value of OMOM capsule endoscopy for small bowel diseases in adults.

Authors:  Lili Zhang; Junsong Shen; Linchun Guo; Fenggan Cheng; Qi Fan; Keqian Ni; Shujing Xia; Detong Zhou
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.447

9.  Small bowel MRI enteroclysis or follow through: which is optimal?

Authors:  Ian C Lawrance; Christopher J Welman; Peter Shipman; Kevin Murray
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Impact of magnetic resonance in the preoperative staging and the surgical planning for treating small bowel neoplasms.

Authors:  Giuseppe Pappalardo; Gianfranco Gualdi; Aldo Nunziale; Gabriele Masselli; Irene Floriani; Emanuele Casciani
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 2.549

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.