| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Gastrointestinal Imaging |
1 From the Department of Radiology, General Hospital Klagenfurt, St Veiterstrasse 47, 9026 Klagenfurt, Austria (H.W.U., J.G., M.U., H.H.), and the Karl-Franzens Medical School and University Hospital, Graz, Austria (D.S.). From the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received July 15, 1999; revision requested August 30; revision received October 15; accepted October 26. Address correspondence to H.W.U. (e-mail: Werner.Umschaden@lkh-klu.at).
PURPOSE: To investigate if magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis can be performed routinely and to compare MR enteroclysis findings with those of conventional enteroclysis or surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR enteroclysis was prospectively performed in 30 patients with symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease or small-bowel obstruction (SBO). A methylcellulose-water solution was used to distend the small bowel. To monitor dynamic changes in the small bowel, a single-shot fast spin-echo T2-weighted sequence was applied. For morphologic assessment, breath-hold T2-weighted fast spin-echo and coronal T1-weighted gradient-recalled-echo MR images were obtained without and with gadolinium enhancement. Image quality and degree of small-bowel distention were graded. MR imaging findings and degree of SBO were compared with findings at conventional enteroclysis (n = 25) or surgery (n = 5).
RESULTS: MR enteroclysis was well tolerated and provided adequate image quality and sufficient small-bowel distention. SBO grade based on MR enteroclysis images (n = 10) was identical to that based on conventional enteroclysis images (n = 6) or surgical findings (n = 4). There was exact agreement between MR enteroclysis and retrospective findings in all five patients who underwent surgery, and MR findings were identical to those at enteroclysis in 18 patients, superior in six patients, and inferior in one patient.
CONCLUSION: MR enteroclysis can be performed routinely with adequate image quality and sufficient small-bowel distention. The functional information provided by MR enteroclysis is identical to that provided at conventional enteroclysis.
Index terms: Crohn disease, 74.262 • Enteritis, 74.23, 74.261, 74.262 • Enteroclysis, 74.1269 • Intestines, diseases, 74.23, 74.261, 74.262 • Intestines, MR, 74.121411, 74.121412 • Intestines, stenosis or obstruction, 74.297
Related Article
Radiology 2000 215: 639-641.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D A McKenna, C P Meehan, A N Alhajeri, M C Regan, and D P O'Keeffe The use of MRI to demonstrate small bowel obstruction during pregnancy Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2007; 80(949): e11 - e14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A C Planner, A Phillips, and H K Bungay The role of imaging in small bowel disease Imaging, December 1, 2006; 18(4): 228 - 256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Kuehle, W. Ajaj, S. C. Ladd, S. Massing, J. Barkhausen, and T. C. Lauenstein Hydro-MRI of the Small Bowel: Effect of Contrast Volume, Timing of Contrast Administration, and Data Acquisition on Bowel Distention Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2006; 187(4): W375 - W385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. Wiarda, E. J. Kuipers, M. A. Heitbrink, A. van Oijen, and J. Stoker MR Enteroclysis of inflammatory small-bowel diseases. Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 522 - 531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Hara, J. A. Leighton, V. K. Sharma, R. I. Heigh, and D. E. Fleischer Imaging of Small Bowel Disease: Comparison of Capsule Endoscopy, Standard Endoscopy, Barium Examination, and CT RadioGraphics, May 1, 2005; 25(3): 697 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A G Schreyer, H C Rath, R Kikinis, M Volk, J Scholmerich, S Feuerbach, G Rogler, J Seitz, and H Herfarth Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the assessment of intestinal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a feasibility study Gut, February 1, 2005; 54(2): 250 - 256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Furukawa, T. Saotome, M. Yamasaki, K. Maeda, N. Nitta, M. Takahashi, T. Tsujikawa, Y. Fujiyama, K. Murata, and T. Sakamoto Cross-sectional Imaging in Crohn Disease RadioGraphics, May 1, 2004; 24(3): 689 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. C. Lauenstein, H. Schneemann, F. M. Vogt, C. U. Herborn, S. G. Ruhm, and J. F. Debatin Optimization of Oral Contrast Agents for MR Imaging of the Small Bowel Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 279 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Laghi, I. Carbone, C. Catalano, R. Iannaccone, P. Paolantonio, I. Baeli, S. Trenna, and R. Passariello Polyethylene Glycol Solution as an Oral Contrast Agent for MR Imaging of the Small Bowel Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2001; 177(6): 1333 - 1334. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Prassopoulos, N. Papanikolaou, J. Grammatikakis, M. Rousomoustakaki, T. Maris, and N. Gourtsoyiannis MR Enteroclysis Imaging of Crohn Disease RadioGraphics, October 1, 2001; 21(90001): S161 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. T. Keogan and R. R. Edelman Technologic Advances in Abdominal MR Imaging Radiology, August 1, 2001; 220(2): 310 - 320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. D. T. Maglinte, E. S. Siegelman, and F. M. Kelvin MR Enteroclysis: The Future of Small-Bowel Imaging? Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 639 - 641. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
