Pitfalls in MR cholangiopancreatographic interpretation

Radiographics

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 23-37

  Irie, Hiroyuki ^a   Honda, Hiroshi ^a   Kuroiwa, Toshiro ^a   Yoshimitsu, Kengo ^a   Aibe, Hitoshi ^a   Shinozaki, Kenji ^a   Masuda, Kouji ^a  

^a KYUSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Bile ducts, MR, 76.1214; Magnetic resonance (MR), maximum intensity projection, 76.1214, 774.1214; Pancreatic ducts, MR, 774.1214

Indexed keywords

BILIARY TRACT DISEASE; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PANCREAS DISEASE; PANCREAS DUCT; PATHOLOGY; REVIEW;

BILIARY TRACT; BILIARY TRACT DISEASES; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PANCREATIC DISEASES; PANCREATIC DUCTS;

EID: 0035220568     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.21.1.g01ja0523     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Irie H, Honda H, Tajima T, et al. Optimal MR cholangiopancreatographic sequence and its clinical application. Radiology 1998; 206:379-387.
2. Reinhold C, Bret PM. Current status of MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:1285-1295.
3. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM. Half-Fourier RARE MRCP in 300 subjects. Radiology 1998; 207:21-32.
4. Chan YL, Chan AC, Lam WW, et al. Choledocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Radiology 1996; 200:85-89.
5. Koito K, Namieno T, Ichimura T, et al. Mucin-producing pancreatic tumors: comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1998; 208:231-237.
6. Takehara Y. Can MRCP replace ERCP? J Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 8:517-534.
7. Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W, et al. Clinical significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1997; 29:182-187.
8. David V, Reinhold C, Hochman M, et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170:1055-1059.
9. Fulcher AS, Turner MA. Pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22:845-850.
10. Watanabe Y, Dohke M, Ishimori T, et al. Diagnostic pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of the biliary tract and gallbladder. RadioGraphics 1999; 19:415-429.
11. Yamashita Y, Abe Y, Tang Y, et al. In vitro and clinical studies of image acquisition in breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography: single-shot projection technique versus multislice technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168:1449-1454.
12. Anderson CM, Saloner D, Tsuruda JS, Shapeero LG, Lee RE. Artifacts in maximum-intensity-projection display of MR angiograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154:623-629.
13. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT. MR cholangiopancreatography: findings on 3D fast spin-echo imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:1397-1401.
14. Hennig J, Nauerth A, Friedburg H. RARE imaging: a fast imaging method for clinical MR. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3:823-833.
15. Irie H, Honda H, Aibe H, et al. MR cholangiopancreatographic differentiation of benign and malignant intraductal mucin-producing tumors of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1403-1408.
16. Sugiyama M, Baba M, Atomi Y, et al. Diagnosis of anomalous pancreaticobiliary junction: value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Surgery 1998; 123:391-397.
17. Irie H, Honda H, Jimi M, et al. Value of MR cholangiopancreatography in evaluating choledochal cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:1381-1385.
18. Takahara T, Yoshikawa T, Saeki M, et al. High concentration ferric ammonium citrate (FAC) solution as a negative bowel contrast agent. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1995; 55:425-426. [Japanese]
19. Kondo H, Kanematsu M, Shiratori Y, Moriwaki H, Hoshi H. Potential pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography: right hepatic arterial impression of the common hepatic duct. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23:60-62.
20. Beneventano TC, Schein CJ. The pseudocalculus sign in cholangiographic interpretation. Arch Surg 1969; 98:731-733.
21. Matos C, Metens T, Deviere J, et al. Pancreatic duct: morphologic and functional evaluation with dynamic MR pancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 1997; 203:435-441.