Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2

Relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging, compared to conventional MRI, in the detection of common bile-duct calculi

Pages
131–137
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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 SWI has the potential to serve as a strong adjunct to conventional MRI protocols used for CBD stone evaluation with very small scan-time penalty.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We aimed to evaluate the relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in the detection of common bile-duct (CBD) stones in comparison to the conventional MRI protocol containing magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), balanced turbo field echo (BTFE), and T2-weighted spin-echo imaging techniques.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS MRI data containing MRCP, BTFE, T2-weighted imaging, and abdominal SWI were independently evaluated by 2 sets of experienced radiologists in 44 patients with confirmed CBD stones.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION SWI has the potential to serve as a strong adjunct to conventional MRI protocols used for CBD stone evaluation with very small scan-time penalty.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in the detection of common bile-duct (CBD) stones in comparison to the conventional MRI protocol containing magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), balanced turbo field echo (BTFE), and T2-weighted spin-echo imaging techniques. METHODS MRI data containing MRCP, BTFE, T2-weighted imaging, and abdominal SWI were independently evaluated by 2 sets of experienced radiologists in 44 patients with confirmed CBD stones. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound where available, was used as the reference gold standard. Evaluation was performed for the visualization of CBD stones in each of the MRI techniques. Relative contribution of SWI was classified into one of four categories for each case: (1) no contribution to CBD stone visualization; (2) same as conventional techniques; (3) improved diagnostic confidence; and (4) critical for diagnosis. Stone size was also assessed. RESULTS Inter-rater agreement coefficient for CBD stone visualization was found to be “good” in MRCP (0.77), “very good” in SWI (0.94) and BTFE (0.84), and moderate in T2-weighted imaging (0.54). CBD stones were visualized with SWI in 86.4% and 82%, with MRCP in 70.5% and 70.5% cases, with BTFE in 73% and 61.4% cases, with T2-weighted imaging in 45.5% and 52.3% cases by reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. SWI did not contribute to CBD stone visualization in 2.3% (1/44); was the same as conventional techniques in 31.8% (14/44) cases; improved diagnostic confidence in 34.1%; and was critical for diagnosis in 20.5% cases. CONCLUSION SWI has the potential to serve as a strong adjunct to conventional MRI protocols used for CBD stone evaluation with very small scan-time penalty.

🔖

Cite This Article

SİNGH, V., NEELAVALLİ, J., PARVAZE, S. P., GUPTA, M., VERMA, R. K., SETH, A. K., MEHTA, L., GUPTA, R. K. (2022). Relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging, compared to conventional MRI, in the detection of common bile-duct calculi. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2, 131–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/487222

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Zhang W. Epidemiology and risk factors of cholelithiasis. J Surg Concepts Pr. 2011;16:408-412
  2. Shaffer EA. Epidemiology and risk factors for gallstone disease: Has the paradigm changed in the 21st century? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2005;7(2):132-140. [Crossref] 3. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of Digestive Diseases in the United States Part III: Liver, Biliary Tract, and Pancreas. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1134-1144. [Crossref] 4. Giljaca V, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;5(2):118
  3. Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L, et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2019;51(5):472-491. [Crossref] 6. JJ C. US Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: A reappraisal. Radiology. 1986;161(1):133. [Crossref] 7. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: Comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed- tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54(2):271-275. [Crossref] 8. Anderson SW, Lucey BC, Varghese JC, Soto JA. Accuracy of MDCT in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(1):174-180. [Crossref] 9. Chen W, Mo JJ, Lin L, Li CQ, Zhang JF. Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in choledocholithiasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(11):3351. [Crossref] 10. Zidi SH, Prat F, Le Guen O, et al. Use of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: Prospective comparison with a reference imaging method. Gut. 1999;44(1):118. [Crossref] 11. Jendresen MB, Thorbøll JE, Adamsen S, Nielsen H, Grønvall S, Hart-Hansen O. Preoperative routine magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective study. Eur J Surg. 2002;168 (12):690. [Crossref] 12. Gandhi D, Ojili V, Nepal P, et al. A pictorial review of gall stones and its associated complications. Clin Imaging. 2020;60(2):228-236. [Crossref] 13. Gupta RK, Neelavalli J, Gupta M, et al. Evaluation of gall bladder stones using susceptibility weighted imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2019;43(5):747-754. [Crossref] 14. Haacke EM, Tang J, Neelavalli J, Cheng YCN. Susceptibility mapping as a means to visualize veins and quantify oxygen saturation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32(3):663-676. [Crossref] 15. D