K Lampichler1, M Scharitzer2. 1. Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. 2. Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. martina.scharitzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Bile duct diseases can be found in all age groups and show an increased prevalence in northern Europe. Pathologies range from benign diseases to malignant tumors with very poor survival. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are the radiological methods of choice for a detailed evaluation of the bile duct system in addition to sonography. By assessing the lumen and the wall of the bile ducts as well as the surrounding structures, both obstructive and nonobstructive pathologies can be diagnosed and differentiated with high sensitivity and specificity. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Technical developments with postprocessing modalities as well as the use of biliary-excreted liver-specific MR contrast agents improve the diagnosis of bile duct diseases and enable morphological and functional assessment. PERFORMANCE: Due to high patient tolerance, minimal procedural risk in contrast to invasive endoscopic methods and the possibility of three-dimensional post-processing, beside CT, MRI with magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) represents the method of choice in patients with sonographically or clinically suspected bile duct disease and has significantly reduced the indications of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A complementary multimodality and multiparametric imaging approach is particularly helpful for preoperative assessment. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Rapidly evolving technology for both MRI and CT represent opportunities and challenges. By understanding the advantages and limitations of modern MR and CT techniques and by knowing the spectrum of bile duct pathologies, improved diagnosis and narrowing of possible differential diagnosis can be achieved.
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Bile duct diseases can be found in all age groups and show an increased prevalence in northern Europe. Pathologies range from benign diseases to malignant tumors with very poor survival. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are the radiological methods of choice for a detailed evaluation of the bile duct system in addition to sonography. By assessing the lumen and the wall of the bile ducts as well as the surrounding structures, both obstructive and nonobstructive pathologies can be diagnosed and differentiated with high sensitivity and specificity. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Technical developments with postprocessing modalities as well as the use of biliary-excreted liver-specific MR contrast agents improve the diagnosis of bile duct diseases and enable morphological and functional assessment. PERFORMANCE: Due to high patient tolerance, minimal procedural risk in contrast to invasive endoscopic methods and the possibility of three-dimensional post-processing, beside CT, MRI with magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) represents the method of choice in patients with sonographically or clinically suspected bile duct disease and has significantly reduced the indications of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A complementary multimodality and multiparametric imaging approach is particularly helpful for preoperative assessment. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Rapidly evolving technology for both MRI and CT represent opportunities and challenges. By understanding the advantages and limitations of modern MR and CT techniques and by knowing the spectrum of bile duct pathologies, improved diagnosis and narrowing of possible differential diagnosis can be achieved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bile duct diseases; Bile ducts; Cholestasis; Diagnostics; Magnetic resonance cholangiography
Authors: Frank H Miller; Caroline M Hwang; Helena Gabriel; Lori A Goodhartz; Anees J Omar; Willis G Parsons Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michelle L Deoliveira; Richard D Schulick; Yuji Nimura; Charles Rosen; Gregory Gores; Peter Neuhaus; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Nam Kyung Lee; Suk Kim; Jun Woo Lee; Suk Hong Lee; Dae Hwan Kang; Gwang Ha Kim; Hyung Il Seo Journal: Radiographics Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Joo Hee Kim; Myeong-Jin Kim; Sung Il Park; Jae-Joon Chung; Si Young Song; Kyung Sik Kim; Hyung Sik Yoo; Jong Tae Lee; Ki Whang Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark W Russo; Jeffrey T Wei; Michelle T Thiny; Lisa M Gangarosa; Alphonso Brown; Yehuda Ringel; Nicholas J Shaheen; Robert S Sandler Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 22.682