Literature DB >> 8657949

Choledocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

Y L Chan1, A C Chan, W W Lam, D W Lee, S S Chung, J J Sung, H S Cheung, A K Li, C Metreweli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with suspected choledocholithiasis underwent non-breath-hold, heavily T2-weighted, respiratory-triggered turbo spin-echo MR cholangiography. They then underwent ERC within 5 hours. The results of the two procedures were compared in 45 patients.
RESULTS: The absence of ductal dilatation was shown in 16 patients at MR cholangiography and at ERC. MR cholangiography showed common duct dilatation in 28 of the 29 patients with dilatation shown at ERC. MR cholangiography helped correctly identify 18 of the 19 patients with choledocholithiasis and 22 of the 26 patients without choledocholithiasis. Sensitivity with MR cholangiography was 95%, specificity was 85%, positive predictive value was 82%, and negative predictive value was 96%. Two of the false-positive findings were due to pneumobilia.
CONCLUSION: Non-breath-hold MR cholangiography is as accurate for the evaluation of choledocholithiasis as ERC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8657949     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  26 in total

1.  Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: a prospective blinded study in non-jaundiced patients.

Authors:  M Polkowski; J Palucki; J Regula; A Tilszer; E Butruk
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones: a decision analysis of the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography, and laparoscopic bile duct exploration.

Authors:  D R Urbach; Y S Khajanchee; B A Jobe; B A Standage; P D Hansen; L L Swanstrom
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Noninvasive imaging of the biliary ducts.

Authors:  J T Ferrucci
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 4.  The role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected biliary obstruction.

Authors:  Mannudeep Kalra; Dushyant Sahani; Aamir Ahmad; Sanjay Saini
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2002-04

5.  Imaging diagnosis of pancreato-biliary diseases: a control study.

Authors:  Liang Zhong; Qiu-Ying Yao; Lei Li; Jian-Rong Xu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Improving the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the routine use of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiography.

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

7.  Role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing choledochal cysts: Case series and review.

Authors:  Vikas Y Sacher; James S Davis; Danny Sleeman; Javier Casillas
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-28

8.  Use of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: prospective comparison with a reference imaging method.

Authors:  S H Zidi; F Prat; O Le Guen; Y Rondeau; L Rocher; J Fritsch; A D Choury; G Pelletier
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 9.  [1997 gastroenterology update--II].

Authors:  W Fischbach; V Gross; J Schölmerich; C Ell; P Layer; W E Fleig
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-03-15

Review 10.  Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Wen Chen; Jing-Jia Mo; Li Lin; Chao-Qun Li; Jian-Feng Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.