Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography: Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 399-405

  Schindera, Sebastian T ^a   Miller, Chad M ^a   Ho, Lisa M ^a   DeLong, David M ^a   Merkle, Elmar M ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

3.0 T; High field magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance cholangiography

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT; CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTRAHEPATIC BILE DUCT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCHOOL CHILD;

EID: 34249070103     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000261940.98762.20     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aube C, Delorme B, Yzet T, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: a prospective, comparative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:55-62.
2. Valls C, Alba E, Cruz M, et al. Biliary complications after liver transplantation: diagnosis with MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:812-820.
3. Vitellas KM, El-Dieb A, Vaswani KK, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: interobserver variability and comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:399-407.
4. Ragozzino A, De Ritis R, Mosca A, et al. Value of MR cholangiography in patients with iatrogenic bile duct injury after cholecystectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1567-1572.
5. Ward J, Sheridan MB, Guthrie JA, et al. Bile duct strictures after hepatobiliary surgery: assessment with MR cholangiography. Radiology. 2004;231:101-108.
6. Takehara Y. Can MRCP replace ERCP? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;8:517-534.
7. Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:258-264.
8. Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3. 0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:385-402.
9. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Paulson EK. Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:17-26.
10. O'Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J, et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1. 5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:894-898.
11. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, et al. 3.0- Versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:516-521.
12. Bachar GN, Cohen M, Belenky A, et al. Effect of aging on the adult extrahepatic bile duct: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:879-882.
13. Wallner BK, Schumacher KA, Weidenmaier W, et al. Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequence. Radiology. 1991;181:805-808.
14. Papanikolaou N, Karantanas AH, Heracleous E, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparison between respiratory-triggered turbo spin echo and breath hold single-shot turbo spin echo sequences. Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;17:1255-1260.
15. Asbach P, Klessen C, Kroencke TJ, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a free-breathing T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence with navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23:939-945.
16. Hargreaves BA, Cunningham CH, Nishimura DG, et al. Variable-rate selective excitation for rapid MRI sequences. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:590-597.
17. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:6-12.
18. Haystead C, Merkle E, Dale B. MRC at 3 Tesla with SPACE. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Seattle, 2006.