SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2001 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4

Koledok taşlarının tanısında manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi ile endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografi karşılaştırması

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones

Murat SARUÇ
Serdar TARHAN
Hasan AYDEDE
Mine CAN
Yamac ERHAN
Pages
263–266
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography has very high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of the common bile duct and can avoid to perform pure-ly diagnostic than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aims Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography is a noninvasive technique in examination of the biliopancreatic .tract which reguires less experience than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study included 27 patients (16 male, 11 female), with a median age of 59.2±8.1 years (range 24 to 76 years) who underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography and then endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography and in whom the results of both techniques were compared The time interval between each technique was no longer than 12 hours.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography has very high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of the common bile duct and can avoid to perform pure-ly diagnostic than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Birleşik safra kanalı · Birleşik safra kanalı taşları · Kolanjiyopankreatografi

Abstract

Background/aims Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography is a noninvasive technique in examination of the biliopancreatic .tract which reguires less experience than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography for common bile duet stones. Methods: The study included 27 patients (16 male, 11 female), with a median age of 59.2±8.1 years (range 24 to 76 years) who underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography and then endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography and in whom the results of both techniques were compared The time interval between each technique was no longer than 12 hours. Results: False negative results with magnet-ic resonance cholangiopancreaticography occurred in two cases with stones less than 3 mm in diameter. No false positivity was seen. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography was unsuc-cessful in detecting a stone in the common bile duct of a patient with massive ascites, while it had a sensitivity and specificity of 88.8% and 100% respectively. Conclusion: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography has very high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of the common bile duct and can avoid to perform pure-ly diagnostic than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography

Özet

Amaç: Manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi biliopankreatik yolların görüntülenmesinde kullanılan invazif olmayan bir yöntemdir. Manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi, endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografiye göre daha az deneyim gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografinin koledok taşlarının tespitindeki tanısal yararı endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografininki ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Yöntem: Kolanjit ve / veya pankreatit kliniği ile hastanemize başvuran 27 olgu (16 erkek, 11 kadın; yaş ortalaması:59.2±8.1 yıl) çalışmaya alınmıştır. Olgular önce manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi ile değerlendirilmiş ve daha sonra endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografi yapılmıştır. Bu iki yöntem arasındaki zamanın 12 saatten daha fazla olmamasına dikkat edilmiştir. Bu iki teknikle elde edilen sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Üç milimetreden küçük taş bulunan iki olguda manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi yalancı negatif sonuç vermiştir. Yalancı pozitiflik ise gözlenmemiştir. Manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi ile masif asid bulunan bir olguda koledokun görüntülenmesi sağlanamamıştır. Çalışmamızda manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi koledokolitizis tanısında %88.8 duyarlılık ve %100 özgüllük göstermiştir. Sonuç: Koledok taşlarının tanısında manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi yüksek duyarlılık ve özgüllük ile sadece diagnostik amaçlı endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografi yapılması gerekliliğini ortadan kaldırmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARUÇ, M., TARHAN, S., AYDEDE, H., CAN, M., ERHAN, Y. (2001). Koledok taşlarının tanısında manyetik rezonans kolanjiopankreatografi ile endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografi karşılaştırması. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4, 263–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/411241

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, et al. A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract disease. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 513-20
  2. Hamilton I, Lintott DJ, Rothwell J, et al. Acute pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Clin Radiol 1983; 34: 543-6
  3. Thoeni RF, Fell SC, Goldberg HI. CT detection of asymptomatic pancreatitis following ERCP. Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15: 291-5
  4. Adamek HE, Weitz M, Breer H, et al. Value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1997; 29: 741-4
  5. Belohlavek D, Koch H, Rosch W et al. 5 years experience in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. Endoscopy 1976; 8: 115-8
  6. Cotton PB. Progress report: ERCP. Gut 1977; 18: 316-7
  7. Thon HJ, Löffler A, Buess G, et al. Is ERCP a resonable diagnostic method for excluding pancreatic and hepatobiliary disease in patients with a Billroth II resection? Endoscopy 1983; 15:93-5
  8. Kumar S, Sherman S, Hawes RH, et al. Success and yield of second attempt ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41: 445-7
  9. Takehara Y, Ichijo K, Tooyama N, et al. Breath-hold MR cholangiography with a long-echo-train fast spin-echo sequence and a surface coil in chronic pancreatitis. Radiology 1994; 192: 73-8
  10. Ishizaki Y, Wakayama T, Okada Y, et al. magnetic resonance cholangiography for evaluation of obstructive jaundice. Am J Gastroenterol 1993; 88: 2072-7
  11. Takehara Y. Can MRCP replace ERCP? JMRI 1998; 8: 517- 34
  12. Macaulay SE, Schulte SJ, Sekijima JH, et al. Evaluation of a non-breath-hold MR cholangiography technique. Radiology 1995; 196: 227-32
  13. Guibaud L, Bred PM, Reinhold C, et al. Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis: diagnosis with MR cholangiography. Radiology 1995; 197: 109-15
  14. Chan YL, Chan AC, Lam WW, et al. Choledocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Radiology 1996; 200: 85-9
  15. Pavone P, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Non-invasive evaluation of the biliary tree with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: initial clinical experience. Italian J Gastroenterol 1996; 28: 63-9