OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) images obtained with a three-dimensional navigator-gated (NG) technique and compare findings with conventional respiratory-triggered (RT) images in pre-laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. METHODS: Turbo-spin-echo (TSE) RT-MRCP (average 242 s) and balanced turbo-field-echo (bTFE) NG-MRCP (average 263 s) were acquired at 1.5-T MRI for 49 pre-laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Two radiologists independently assessed image quality, visibility of anatomical structures, common bile duct (CBD) stones, and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Interobserver agreement was also evaluated. RESULTS: The anatomical details of the cystic duct were clearly demonstrated in 33 (67.3 %, reader A) and 35 (71.4 %, reader B) patients on RT-MRCP, and in 45 (91.8 %) and 44 (89.7 %) patients on NG-MRCP. On NG-MRCP, visualisation of the cystic duct (3.22/3.12), its origin (3.57/3.55), and the gallbladder(3.61/3.59) was statistically better than on RT-MRCP (2.90/2.78, 3.29/3.12, 2.98/2.88, respectively). The overall image quality was statistically better on NG-MRCP than RT-MRCP. Each technique identified the presence of CBD stones in all affected patients. The SNR was significantly higher on NG-MRCP (CHD 22.40, gallbladder 17.13) than RT-MRCP (CHD 17.05, gallbladder 9.30). Interobserver agreement was fair to perfect. CONCLUSION: Navigator-gated MRCP is more useful than respiratory-triggered MRCP for evaluating the gallbladder and cystic duct in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) provides important cystic duct information before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. • Navigator-gated (NG) MRCP images were better than conventional respiratory-triggered (RT) MRCP. • The signal-to-noise ratio was significantly higher for NG-MRCP than for conventional RT-MRCP. • Balanced turbo-field-echo NG-MRCP is useful for evaluating the gallbladder and cystic duct.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) images obtained with a three-dimensional navigator-gated (NG) technique and compare findings with conventional respiratory-triggered (RT) images in pre-laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. METHODS: Turbo-spin-echo (TSE) RT-MRCP (average 242 s) and balanced turbo-field-echo (bTFE) NG-MRCP (average 263 s) were acquired at 1.5-T MRI for 49 pre-laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Two radiologists independently assessed image quality, visibility of anatomical structures, common bile duct (CBD) stones, and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Interobserver agreement was also evaluated. RESULTS: The anatomical details of the cystic duct were clearly demonstrated in 33 (67.3 %, reader A) and 35 (71.4 %, reader B) patients on RT-MRCP, and in 45 (91.8 %) and 44 (89.7 %) patients on NG-MRCP. On NG-MRCP, visualisation of the cystic duct (3.22/3.12), its origin (3.57/3.55), and the gallbladder(3.61/3.59) was statistically better than on RT-MRCP (2.90/2.78, 3.29/3.12, 2.98/2.88, respectively). The overall image quality was statistically better on NG-MRCP than RT-MRCP. Each technique identified the presence of CBD stones in all affected patients. The SNR was significantly higher on NG-MRCP (CHD 22.40, gallbladder 17.13) than RT-MRCP (CHD 17.05, gallbladder 9.30). Interobserver agreement was fair to perfect. CONCLUSION: Navigator-gated MRCP is more useful than respiratory-triggered MRCP for evaluating the gallbladder and cystic duct in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) provides important cystic duct information before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. • Navigator-gated (NG) MRCP images were better than conventional respiratory-triggered (RT) MRCP. • The signal-to-noise ratio was significantly higher for NG-MRCP than for conventional RT-MRCP. • Balanced turbo-field-echo NG-MRCP is useful for evaluating the gallbladder and cystic duct.
Authors: C Ausch; G Hochwarter; M Taher; B Holzer; H R Rosen; M Urban; C Sebesta; W Hruby; R Schiessel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-03-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrew C F Taylor; Andrew F Little; Oliver F Hennessy; Simon W Banting; Peter J Smith; Paul V Desmond Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Piyaporn Limanond; Steven S Raman; R Mark Ghobrial; Ronald W Busuttil; David S K Lu Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.813