Radiology · 1998
Breath-hold MR cholangiography with snapshot techniques: prospective comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Holzknecht N, Gauger J, Sackmann M, Thoeni R F, Schurig J, Holl J, Weinzierl M, Helmberger T, Paumgartner G, Reiser M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare findings with magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography with rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement (RARE) and half-Fourier acquisition with single-shot turbo spin-echo (hereafter, half Fourier RARE) snapshot imaging techniques to those with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Heavily T2-weighted thick-section (RARE) and thin-section (half-Fourier RARE) MR cholangiography were performed prospectively, on a 1.5-T imager, in the biliary tree of 61 consecutive patients before ERC. Findings at ERC were considered the standard of reference. The radiologist and endoscopist were blinded to each other's report. On- and off-site MR cholangiographic readings were performed to detect stones (n = 24), biliary dilatation (n = 34), or stenosis (n = 36).
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of MR cholangiography, respectively, calculated on a lesion-by-lesion basis, were 92.3% and 95.8% for cholangiolithiasis, 94.1% and 92.6% for duct dilatation, and 88.8% and 84.0% for stenosis. With snapshot MR cholangiography, on a patient-by-patient basis, differentiation between normal (n = 15) and abnormal (n = 46) results yielded a sensitivity of 92.4%, a specificity of 83.4%, and a positive predictive value of 95.6%. Pitfalls were caused by flow artifacts, compression by vessels, and low contrast between calculi and surrounding parenchyma.
CONCLUSION: Snapshot MR cholangiography allowed noninvasive, accurate detection of biliary stones, strictures, and dilatation similar to that with ERC. Discrepancies regarding low-grade dilatation and strictures had no clinical relevance at retrospective review.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Heavily T2-weighted thick-section (RARE) and thin-section (half-Fourier RARE) MR cholangiography were performed prospectively, on a 1.5-T imager, in the biliary tree of 61 consecutive patients before ERC. Findings at ERC were considered the standard of reference. The radiologist and endoscopist were blinded to each other's report. On- and off-site MR cholangiographic readings were performed to detect stones (n = 24), biliary dilatation (n = 34), or stenosis (n = 36).
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of MR cholangiography, respectively, calculated on a lesion-by-lesion basis, were 92.3% and 95.8% for cholangiolithiasis, 94.1% and 92.6% for duct dilatation, and 88.8% and 84.0% for stenosis. With snapshot MR cholangiography, on a patient-by-patient basis, differentiation between normal (n = 15) and abnormal (n = 46) results yielded a sensitivity of 92.4%, a specificity of 83.4%, and a positive predictive value of 95.6%. Pitfalls were caused by flow artifacts, compression by vessels, and low contrast between calculi and surrounding parenchyma.
CONCLUSION: Snapshot MR cholangiography allowed noninvasive, accurate detection of biliary stones, strictures, and dilatation similar to that with ERC. Discrepancies regarding low-grade dilatation and strictures had no clinical relevance at retrospective review.