Literature DB >> 26140894

The Role of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in the Diagnosis of Choledocholithiasis: Do Benefits Outweigh the Costs?

William H Ward1, Laura M Fluke, Benjamin D Hoagland, Gregory J Zarow, Jenny M Held, Robert L Ricca.   

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard in evaluation of the biliary tree for choledocholithiasis. Formal indications for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in suspected choledocholithiasis are lacking. Our objective was to determine if MRCP affects management of patients who otherwise would undergo ERCP. A review was conducted of all MRCPs and ERCPs at our institution from 2008 to 2012 with suspected choledocholithiasis. Patients who underwent MRCP and ERCP were compared with those who underwent ERCP alone. Demographic data were collected and notation of whether a post-MRCP ERCP occurred was the primary variable. MRCP was performed in 107 patients for choledocholithiasis. Eighty-eight patients were negative for choledocholithiasis (82%) and 76 were discharged without ERCP (71%). Thirty-one patients received a diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and were referred for ERCP. Of the 19 patients with MRCP-diagnosed common bile duct stones, 95 per cent were confirmed by ERCP (odds ratio 18.0, P < 0.05; agreement 77%, sensitivity 0.76, specificity 0.86, positive predictive value 0.95, negative predictive value 0.50). Length of stay was similar for all groups. A total of 131 patients underwent ERCP without a preprocedural MRCP. Choledocholithiasis was found in 116 patients (92%), whereas 12 patients (9%) had no common bile duct stones and three had an alternate diagnosis. In conclusion, MRCP significantly affected the management of patients who would have undergone ERCP. MRCP did not increase length of stay and contributed to the 95 per cent positivity rate of subsequent ERCPs. These data illustrate the utility of MRCP in suspected choledocholithiasis patients at a low cost with regard to risk and time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26140894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Surg        ISSN: 0003-1348            Impact factor:   0.688


  5 in total

1.  Endoscopic ultrasonography versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: Comments from the radiologists'.

Authors:  Sheng Pan; Qiyong Guo
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.628

2.  Unusual Use of Gd-EOB-DTPA in MRCP in Order to Reveal the Source of Bile Leakage in a Patient with Neuroendocrine Tumor - Case Report.

Authors:  Rafał Mazur; Aleksander Pawluś; Kinga Szymańska; Mateusz Patyk; Anna Otlewska; Krzysztof Międzybrodzki; Dąbrówka Sokołowska-Dąbek; Eliza Kubicka; Urszula Zaleska-Dorobisz
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-14

3.  A retrospective analysis of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography investigating gallstones in a contemporary surgical setting.

Authors:  Christian Robinson; Robin M Turner; Jon Potter
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.025

4.  Combination of serum gamma-glutamyltransferase and alkaline phosphatase in predicting the diagnosis of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis secondary to cholecystolithiasis.

Authors:  Yong Mei; Li Chen; Peng-Fei Zeng; Ci-Jun Peng; Jun Wang; Wen-Ping Li; Chao Du; Kun Xiong; Kai Leng; Chun-Lin Feng; Ji-Hu Jia
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2019-01-26       Impact factor: 1.337

5.  Preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography before planned laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it necessary?

Authors:  Rami Rhaiem; Tullio Piardi; Yohann Renard; Mikael Chetboun; Arman Aghaei; Christine Hoeffel; Daniele Sommacale; Reza Kianmanesh
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 1.852

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.