Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2016
Comparative evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography/magnetic resonance splenoportovenography and endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of portal cavernoma cholangiopathy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rai Gyan Prakash, Nijhawan Sandeep, Madhu M P, Sharma Shyam Sundar, Pokharna Rupesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography/magnetic resonance splenoportovenography (MRCP/MRSPV) is now the investigation of choice for the diagnosis of portal cavernoma cholangiopathy (PCC). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an emerging diagnostic modality for the diagnosis of PCC and may be better than MRCP/MRSPV to see the layer-wise localization of varices and to differentiate between varices, stone, and malignancy.
METHODS: Retrospective data of 50 patients of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) were collected, and comparison between MRCP/MRSPV and EUS was done for the diagnosis of PCC.
RESULTS: Out of 50 patients, 56 % (28) were males, 44 % (22) females, and 24 % (12) symptomatic. Biliary changes were seen in 40 patients (80 %). Epicholedochal collateral (EPEC) was detected in 48 % and 20 % in MRCP/MRSPV and EUS, respectively. Perforators (PER) and intracholedochal collateral (ICC) were better seen with EUS (72 % and 48 %) as compared to MRCP/MRSPV (0 % and 8 %), and p-values were significant (<0.05). EUS has a sensitivity of 33.33 % and a specificity of 92.31 % for EPEC. Portal cavernoma (PC) and collateral at porta (CP), paracholedochal collateral (PAC), perisplenic (PS) and peripancreatic collateral (PPC), pericholedochal collateral (PEC), intrahepatic biliary radical dilatation (IHBRD), perigallbladder collateral (PG), common bile duct dilatation (CBDD) and common hepatic duct dilatation (CHDD), common bile duct stricture (CBDS), and retropancreatic collateral (RPC) were comparable between the two modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS detected PER and ICC better than MRCP/MRSPV, while MRCP/MRSPV was more sensitive for detecting EPEC.
METHODS: Retrospective data of 50 patients of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) were collected, and comparison between MRCP/MRSPV and EUS was done for the diagnosis of PCC.
RESULTS: Out of 50 patients, 56 % (28) were males, 44 % (22) females, and 24 % (12) symptomatic. Biliary changes were seen in 40 patients (80 %). Epicholedochal collateral (EPEC) was detected in 48 % and 20 % in MRCP/MRSPV and EUS, respectively. Perforators (PER) and intracholedochal collateral (ICC) were better seen with EUS (72 % and 48 %) as compared to MRCP/MRSPV (0 % and 8 %), and p-values were significant (<0.05). EUS has a sensitivity of 33.33 % and a specificity of 92.31 % for EPEC. Portal cavernoma (PC) and collateral at porta (CP), paracholedochal collateral (PAC), perisplenic (PS) and peripancreatic collateral (PPC), pericholedochal collateral (PEC), intrahepatic biliary radical dilatation (IHBRD), perigallbladder collateral (PG), common bile duct dilatation (CBDD) and common hepatic duct dilatation (CHDD), common bile duct stricture (CBDS), and retropancreatic collateral (RPC) were comparable between the two modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS detected PER and ICC better than MRCP/MRSPV, while MRCP/MRSPV was more sensitive for detecting EPEC.