The Comparison of MRCP and ERCP findings in obstructive jaundice

Subject Areas : علوم پزشکی

Saeid Naghibi ¹ ()
Niloofar Nasr Abadi ² ()
Abbas Esmaeil zadeh ³ ()

Received: 2017-06-06 Accepted : 2017-06-06 Published : 2012-11-21

Keywords: ERCP, MRCP, obstructive jaundice,

Abstract :

Introduction: Obstructive jaundice is a type of jaundice that due to blockage in the flow of bile from the liver to the duodenum caused. Obstructive jaundice in the West as there is a common disease in %15 of cases and has several causes, including hepatocellular carcinoma, carcinoma of the pancreas and biliary tract stones. Measures such as ultrasound, CT scan, ERCP, PTC and recently MRCP determine to help. Despite being the gold standard diagnostic is ERCP but not a hundred percent right. So today is trying to make more use of MRCP. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the results of ERCP and MRCP, both inside and outside diameter of the bile ducts of the liver, the presence or absence of defects within the duct, diameter of pancreatic duct, presence or absence of space-occupying lesions of the gallbladder. Materials and Methods: The study included 36 patients over three years for MRCP Imaging Center Corp went was. Imaging results are interpreted by a skilled radiologist and the data were recorded into the questionnaire. After definite diagnose of obstructive jaundice, the patient undergo ERCP and saved that data. The results of the two methods were compared with each other.\ esults: Among the 36 patients with obstructive jaundice within 3 years, 13 women (%36.1) and 23 men (%63.9) had a mean age of 56.8 years and men 61.5 years. The sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of CBD diameter Abnormality compared to ERCP (the gold standard), respectively, %97 and %100, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of the common hepatic duct and cystic duct diameter Abnormality compared to ERCP (the gold standard), respectively, %100 and %100, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of hepatic duct internal diameter Abnormality compared to ERCP (the gold standard), respectively, %87 and %100, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of biliary tract filling defect, respectively, %71 and %97, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of space-occupying lesions were both %100 sensitivity and specificity of MRCP in the diagnosis of a filling defect in the gallbladder, respectively, %100 and %68, respectively. Conclusion: MRCP has the high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of abnormalities of biliary system and reduces the need for invasive imaging techniques that have morbidity and cost a lot for patient.  

References:

1. Edelman RR, Hesselink JR, Zlatkin M.Clinical Magnetic Resonance imaging.3^rd ed. Sunders; 2005.4200.


2. Hagga JR.CT and MRI of the whole body.5th ed.Volume 1. Mosby Elsevier; 2009.1210.


3. Mcgahan J, Goldberg BB.Diagnostic ultrasound (a logical approach).2^nd ed. Lippincott Williams and wikins; 1998.1288.


4. Feldman M, friedman LS, Brandt LJ.Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease.9^th ed.Saunders;2010.2480.


5. Brunicardi F, Anderson D, Billiar T, Dunn D, Hunter J, Pollock RE.Schwartz’ principle of surgery:self-assessment and board review.9^th ed. McGraw-Hill professional;2009.1888.


6. Michael J. Zinner, Stanley W. Ashley.Maingot's Abdominal Operations.11^th edition.


7. Scaffidi MG, Luigiano C, Consolo P, Pellicano R, Giacobbe G, Gaeta M, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Minerva Med. 2009 Oct;100(5):341-8.


8. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A, Erdem Z, Karademir B, Aydemir S, et al.MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of  biliary pathology.J Dig Dis.2008 Aug;9(3):162-9.


9. Shanmugam V, Beattie GC, Yule SR, Reid W, Loudon MA.Is magnetic resonance cholangio- pancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging.Br J Radiol.2005 Oct;78(934):888-93.


10. Griffin N , Wastle ML, Dunn WK, Ryder SD, Beckingham IJ.Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.2003 Jul;15(7):809-13.


11. Kim TK, Kim BS, Kim JH, Ha HK, Kim PN, Kim AY, et al.Diagnosis of intrahepatic stone:superiority of MR cholangiopancreatography over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.AJR Am J Roentgenol.2002 Aug;179(2):429-34.


12. Adamek HE, Albert J, Weitz M, Breer H, Schilling D, Riemann JE.A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangio pancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction.Gut.1998 Nov;43(5):680-3.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Sahai AV, Devonshire D, Yeoh KG, et al: The decislon-maklllg value of magnclic rcsonance cho]angiopancreawgraphy in palients seen in a refcrra] center for suspected biliary and pancreatic dIsease. Am ) Gastroenrero] 9602074·2080,2001.


2. Lee MG, Jeong YK, Kim MH, et a]: MR chobngiopancreawgraphy of pancreaticobiliary diseases: comparing single-shot RARE and ll1ulrislice HASTE sequcnces. Am) Roemgenol 171: 1539-1545, 1998.


3. Turner MA, Fulcher AS: The cystic duct: normal anatomy and disease processes. RadioGraphics 21 :3-22, 2001.


4. Kanzer GK, Weinreb)C: Magnetic resonance imaging of diseases of the liver and biliary system. Radiol Clin North Am 29:] 259-1284, 1991.


5. Barish MA, Soto)A: MR cholangiopancreatography: techniques and clinical applications. Am J Roentgeno] 169: 1235-1303, 1997.