Routine magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and intra-operative cholangiogram in the evaluation of common bile duct stones

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 469-470

  Dalton, S J ^a,c   Balupuri, S ^b   Guest, J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b WANSBECK GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cholangiogram; Cholelithiasis; MRCP

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLELITHIASIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMON BILE DUCT STONE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JAUNDICE; LIVER FUNCTION TEST; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PEROPERATIVE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLELITHIASIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 27844514614     PISSN: 00358843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1308/003588405X51137     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Brisbois D et al. [Value of MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis in symptomatic patients: one-year experience with a standardized high resolution breath-hold technique]. Jbr Btr 2001; 84: 258-61.
2. Sharma SK et al. Role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2003; 7: 7.
3. Boraschi P et al. Choledocholithiasis: diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Three-year experience. Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 17: 1245-53.
4. Calvo MM et al. Comparison between magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ERCP for evaluation of the pancreatic duct. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 347-53.
5. Adamek HE et al. A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction. Gut 1998; 43: 680-3.
6. Ahn T et al. [Diagnostic usefulness of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in comparison with retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for cholelithiasis]. Nippon Rinsho 1998; 56: 2923-7.
7. Menon K et al. Patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 2646-50.
8. Basile L et al. [Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparative study with direct cholangiography]. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2000; 30: 487-90.
9. Sahai AV et al. The decision-making value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients seen in a referral center for suspected biliary and pancreatic disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 2074-80.
10. Fletcher DR. Operative cholangiogram at laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Semin Laparosc Surg 1995; 2: 111-7.
11. Snow LL et al. Evaluation of operative cholangiography in 2043 patients under-going laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case for the selective operative cholangiogram. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 14-20.
12. Corbitt Jr JD, Yusem SO. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with operative cholangiogram. Surg Endosc 1994; 8: 292-5.
13. Alcaraz MJ et al. A comparative study of magnetic resonance cholangiography and direct cholangiography. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2000; 92: 427-38.
14. Varghese JC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 25-35.