Silva GKB, León MUA, Ayala GF

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 98-105
PDF size: 553.84 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. Magnetic cholangioresonance is an exploration based on “static fluid hydrography,” which, by means of high-powered sequences in acquisition time T2, can be used to obtain a signal from the static fluid, saturating the fundus and fluids in rapid motion. It is used to acquire images of the biliary tree in any spatial plane without administering intravenous contrast.
Purpose. Compare the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic cholangioresonance with those of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in detection of choledocholithyasis.
Material and methods. A comparative and prospective study of 284 patients with suspected choledocholithyasis (96 men and 188 women) between 11 and 90 years of age (average 51 years) who underwent magnetic cholangioresonance using the sequences non breathhold, heavily T2 weighted and respiratory-triggered turbo spinecho, as well as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. A Siemens 1.5 Tesla Magnetom Avanto resonator was used.
Results. Magnetic cholangioresonance was successful in correctly diagnosing 236 patients with choledocholithyasis, of a total of 240, and 28 patients without choledocholithyasis of a total of 34.
The sensitivity of magnetic cholangioresonance was 98.3% and specificity 82.3%, with positive predictive value 84% and negative predictive value 89.4%.
Conclusion. Magnetic cholangioresonance is accurate in evaluating choledocholithyasis, as is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

REFERENCES

1. Rösch T, Meining A, Frühmorgen S. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accurancy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound in biliary structures. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2002;55(7):870-876.

2. Yeh BM, Liu PS, Soto AJ, Corvera AC, Hussain HK. MRI Imaging and CT of the biliary tract. RadioGraphics 2009;29:1669–1688.

3. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A. MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of biliary pathologies: reviewof current literature. J Dig Dis 2008;9:162–169.

4. Halefoglu AM. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a useful tool in the evaluation of pancreatic and biliary disorders. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:2529–2534.

5. Van Hoe L, Mermuys K, Vanhoenacker P. MRCP pitfalls. Abdom Imaging 2004;29:360–387.

6. Romagnuolo J, Bardou M, Rahme E, Joseph L, Reinhold C, Barkun AN. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:547–557.

7. Keogan MT, Edelman RR. Technologic advances in abdominal MR imaging. State of the art. Radiology 2001;220:310-320.

8. Liu TH, Consorti ET, Kawashima A. The efficacy of magnetic resonance cholangiography for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1999;178:480-484.

9. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM. Half- Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. Radiology 1998;207:21-32.

10. Chan YL, Chan AC, Lam WW. Choledocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1996;200:85-89.

11. Becker CD, Grossholz M, Becker M, Mentha G, de Peyer R, Terrier F. Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MRI Cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;205:523-530.

12. Regan F, Fradin J, Khazan R, Bohlman M, Magnuson T. Choledocholithiasis: evaluation with MRI cholangiography. AJR 1996;167:1441-1445.

13. Barish MA, Yucel EK, Soto JA, Chuttani R, Ferrucci JT. MR cholangiopancreatography: efficacy of three-dimensional turbo spin-echo technique. AIR 1995;165:295-300.

14. Everit B.S. The Analysis of Contingency Tables. Chapman and Hall London.p.149.

15. Busel D, Pérez L, Arroyo A, Ortega D, Niedmann J.P, Palavecino P. Colangioresonancia (CPRM) VS Ultrasonido (US) focalizado en pacientes con ictericia o sospecha de obstrucción de la vía biliar. Resultados Preliminare. Rev Chil Radiología. 2003;9:173-181.

16. Guibaud L, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M, Barkun AN. Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis: diagnosis with MR cholangiography. Radiology 1995;197:109-115.

17. Sica GT, Braver J, Cooney MJ, Miller FH, Chai JL, Adams DF. Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with pancreatitis. Radiology 1999;210:605-610.

18. Kroh M, Chand B. Choledocholithiasis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Clin N Am 2008;88:1019-1031.

19. Dwerryhouse SJ, Brown E, Vipond MN. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography to detect common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Brit J Surg 1998;85:1364-1366.

20. Feldman M, Friedman L, Brandt L. Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease. Tratamiento de la litiasis biliar. Editorial Saunders. 8th ed. 2006.p.1433-1434.

21. Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008;57:1004-1021.