Clinical impact of MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with biliary disease;Impatto clinico della colangiopancreatografia a risonanza magnetica nei pazienti con patologia biliare

Radiologia Medica

Volumn 105, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 27-35

  Filippone, Antonella ^a   Ambrosini, Roberta ^a   Fuschi, Maurizio ^a   Marinelli, Tiziana ^a   Pinto, Dario ^b   Maggialetti, Alberto ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHIETI   (Italy)

^b Ricerche Radiologiche ^*  (Italy)

^c Ospedale di Andria   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bile ducts, calculi; Bile ducts, diseases; Bile ducts, obstruction or stenosis; Magnetic Resonance, comparative studies; MR cholangiopancreatography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT DILATATION; BILIARY TRACT DISEASE; CHOLECYSTITIS; CHRONIC PANCREATITIS; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMMON BILE DUCT STONE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS TRANSHEPATIC CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; PEROPERATIVE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; BILIARY TRACT DISEASES; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0038031667     PISSN: 00338362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Baillie J: Complications of endoscopy. Endoscopy 24: 185-203, 1994.
2. Bilbao MK, Dotter CT, Lee TG et al: Complications of retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a study of 10000 cases. Gastroenterology 70: 314-320, 1976
3. Tanner AR, Dwarakanath AD, Tait NP: The potential impact of high-quality MRI of the biliary tree on ERCP workload. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 12: 773-776, 2000.
4. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK et al: Magnetic Resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Gastroenterology 110: 589-597, 1996.
5. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW et al: Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. Radiology 207: 21-32, 1998.
6. Holzknecht N, Gauger J, Sackmann M et al: Breath-hold MR cholangiography with snapshot techniques: prospective comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Radiology 206: 657-664, 1998.
7. Kim Mj, Mitchell DG, Ito K et al: Biliary dilatation: differentiation of benign from malignant causes - value of adding conventional MR imaging to MR cholangiopancreatograpby. Radiology 214: 173-181,2000.
8. Bismuth H, Corlette MB: Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet 140: 170-178, 1975.
9. David V, Reinhold C, Hochman M et al: Pitfalls in the interpretation of MR cholangiography. AJR 170: 1055-1059, 1998.
10. Kim JH, Kim MJ, Park SI et al: Using kinematic MR: Cholangiopancreatography to evaluate biliary dilatation. AJR 178: 909-914, 2002.
11. Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltske W et al: Clinical significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 29: 182-187, 1997.
12. Becker CD, Grossholz M, Becker M et al: Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MRCP. Radiology 205: 523-530, 1997.
13. Lopera JE, Soto AJ, Munera F: Malignant hilar and perihilar biliary obstruction: use of MRCP to define the extent of biliary ductal involvement and plan percutaneous intervention. Radiology 220: 90-96, 2001
14. England RE, Martin DF: Endoscopic and percutaneous intervention in malignant obstructive jaundice. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 19: 381-387, 1996.