Literature DB >> 20177983

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

S Palmucci1, L A Mauro, S La Scola, S Incarbone, G Bonanno, P Milone, A Russo, G C Ettorre.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in evaluating the cause of extrahepatic bile duct dilatation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients (26 men, mean age 57 years) with extrahepatic biliary dilatation, as shown by transabdominal ultrasound, with or without elevated biliary and pancreatic serum indices, were prospectively studied with MRCP and EUS between September 2007 and October 2008. EUS and MRCP were performed within no more than 24 h of each other to reduce the possibility of changes due to stone migration. Image analysis was carried out in a double-blind fashion.
RESULTS: MRCP had 88.9% diagnostic accuracy, 91.9% sensitivity and 75% specificity, with 94.4% positive predictive value and 66.7% negative predictive value. EUS had 93.3% diagnostic accuracy, 97.3% sensitivity and 75% specificity; the positive and negative predictive values were 94.7% and 85.7%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MRCP and EUS do not show significant statistical differences in diagnostic accuracy. MRCP is an accurate, noninvasive modality in the study of extrahepatic biliary pathology. EUS is especially reliable in patients with extrahepatic biliary obstruction caused by endoluminal sludge.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20177983     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-010-0526-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis.

Authors:  J M Scheiman; R C Carlos; J L Barnett; G H Elta; T T Nostrant; W D Chey; I R Francis; P S Nandi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  MR imaging of ampullary carcinomas.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Irie; Hiroshi Honda; Kenji Shinozaki; Kengo Yoshimitsu; Hitoshi Aibe; Akihiro Nishie; Tomohiro Nakayama; Kouji Masuda
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.826

5.  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

6.  Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects.

Authors:  A S Fulcher; M A Turner; G W Capps; A M Zfass; K M Baker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Complications of ERCP: a prospective study.

Authors:  Merete Christensen; Peter Matzen; Svend Schulze; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  J A Soto; M A Barish; E K Yucel; D Siegenberg; J T Ferrucci; R Chuttani
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Comparative diagnostic evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography, ultrasonography and CT in patients with pancreatobiliary disease.

Authors:  S Maurea; O Caleo; C Mollica; M Imbriaco; P P Mainenti; C Palumbo; M Mancini; L Camera; M Salvatore
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis.

Authors:  F Prat; G Amouyal; P Amouyal; G Pelletier; J Fritsch; A D Choury; C Buffet; J P Etienne
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-01-13       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  6 in total

1.  Uncommon neoplasms of the biliary tract: radiological findings.

Authors:  Vincenza Granata; Roberta Fusco; Orlando Catalano; Salvatore Filice; Antonio Avallone; Mauro Piccirillo; Maddalena Leongito; Raffaele Palaia; Roberto Grassi; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  For biliary dilatation, a negative endosonography needs additional image studies in weight loss suggesting malignancy.

Authors:  Chien-Hua Chen; Chi-Chieh Yang; Yung-Hsiang Yeh
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  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

4.  Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience.

Authors:  Dadang Makmun; Achmad Fauzi; Hamzah Shatri
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-02-28

Review 5.  The utilization of imaging features in the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms.

Authors:  Stefano Palmucci; Claudia Trombatore; Pietro Valerio Foti; Letizia Antonella Mauro; Pietro Milone; Roberto Milazzotto; Rosalia Latino; Giacomo Bonanno; Giuseppe Petrillo; Antonio Di Cataldo
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 2.260

6.  Exploration of an effective training system for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases with EUS: A prospective study.

Authors:  Chaoqun Han; Chi Nie; Xiaoping Shen; Tao Xu; Jun Liu; Zhen Ding; Xiaohua Hou
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.628

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.