Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T02:52:22.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

Ihab R. Kamel
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Elmar M. Merkle
Affiliation:
Duke University School of Medicine, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), in use since the 1990s [1], is an accepted noninvasive imaging technique for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary diseases. MRCP images are created with the acquisition of heavily T2-weighted images, and can demonstrate the fluid-filled lumen of the biliary tree and the pancreatic duct with high signal intensity. It is comparable to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the diagnosis of biliary-pancreas pathologic conditions [2–5]. The advantages of MRCP over other imaging techniques include (1) the examination is noninvasive and requires no anesthesia; (2) the examination is not operator dependent, and high-quality images can be obtained consistently; (3) no administration of intraductal or intravenous contrast agent is necessary; (4) no ionizing radiation is used; (5) visualization of ducts proximal to an obstruction is superior to that achieved by ERCP; (6) MRCP can be successfully performed in the presence of biliary–enteric anastomoses; and (7) combination with conventional MR sequences is possible and helpful for the evaluation of duct wall and extraductal disease [6]. For many years, ERCP has been considered the standard of reference for imaging the biliary tract and pancreatic duct owing to its higher spatial resolution and potential for image-guided therapy [7]. However, it has a reported complications rate of up to 5% including duodenal perforation, pancreatitis, bleeding and sepsis [8]. For all of these reasons, MRCP has replaced diagnostic ERCP in the last few years, unless an intervention or tissue sampling is required [9].

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wallner, B KSchumacher, K AWeidenmaier, WDilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequenceRadiology 1991 181 805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romagnuolo, JBardou, MRahme, EMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary diseaseAnn Intern Med 2003 139 547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhold, CBret, P MCurrent status of MR cholangiopancreatographyAJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 166 1285CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, JFlorman, SVarotti, GNoninvasive preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in right-lobe living donors with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiographyTransplant Proc 2003 35 1421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, H SLee, J MChoi, J YPreoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer: MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography versus MDCT with direct cholangiographyAJR Am J Roentgenol 2008 190 396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilgin, MShaikh, FSemelka, RMagnetic resonance imaging of gallbladder and biliary systemTop Magn Reson Imaging 2009 20 31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masci, EToti, GMariani, AComplications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter studyAm J Gastroenterol 2001 96 417CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loperfido, SAngelini, GBenedetti, GMajor early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter studyGastrointest Endosc 1998 48 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindera, S TMerkle, E MMR cholangiopancreatography: 1.5T versus 3TMagn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007 15 355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merkle, E MDale, B MAbdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisitedAJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 186 1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soher, B JDale, B MMerkle, E MA review of MR physics: 3T versus 1.5TMagn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007 200 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramalho, MAltun, EHeredia, VZapparoli, MSemelka, RLiver MRI: 1.5T vs. 3TMagn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007 15 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkle, E MHaugan, P AThomas, J3.0-versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot studyAJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 186 516CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Regan, D PFitzgerald, JAllsop, JA comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 TeslaBr J Radiol 2005 78 894CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isoda, HKataoka, MMaetani, YMRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteersJ Magn Reson Imaging 2007 25 1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindera, S TMiller, C MHo, L MMagnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography: quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 TeslaInvest Radiol 2007 42 399CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onishi, HKim, THori, MMR cholangiopancreatography at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study with MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5T for clinical patientsInvest Radiol 2009 44 559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bazelaire, C MDuhamel, G DRofsky, N MMR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary resultsRadiology 2004 230 652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S YByun, J HLee, S SBiliary tract depiction in living potential liver donors: intraindividual comparison of MR cholangiography at 3.0 T and 1.5TRadiology 2010 254 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapoor, VPeterson, M SBaron, R LIntrahepatic biliary anatomy of living adult liver donors: correlation of mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography and intraoperative cholangiographyAJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 1281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hottat, NWinant, CMetens, TMR cholangiography with manganese dipyridoxyl diphosphate in the evaluation of biliary-enteric anastomoses: preliminary experienceAJR Am J Roentgenol 2005 184 1556CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
An, S KLee, J MSuh, K SGadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donorsAJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 187 1223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, T LCheng, Y FChen, C LVariants of the bile ducts: clinical application in the potential donor of living-related hepatic transplantationTransplant Proc 1996 28 1669Google ScholarPubMed
Fulcher, A SSzucs, R ABassignani, M JRight lobe living donor liver transplantation: preoperative evaluation of the donor with MR imagingAJR Am J Roentgenol 1999 172 955Google Scholar
Lam, W W MLam, T P WSaing, HMR cholangiography and CT cholangiography of pediatric patients with choledochal cystsAJR Am J Roentgenol 1999 173 401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, JTurner, M AFulcher, ASCongenital anomalies and normal variants of the pancreaticobiliary tract and the pancreas in adults. Part 2: pancreatic duct and pancreasAJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 187 1544CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, Y LChan, A CLam, W WCholedocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiographyRadiology 1996 200 85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, M GLee, H JKim, M HExtrahepatic biliary diseases: 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyRadiology 1997 202 663CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, TKim, BKim, JDiagnosis of intrahepatic stones: superiority of MR cholangiopancreatography over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyAJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 429CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, L HLefkowitz, R APanicek, D MBreath-hold magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of malignant pancreaticobiliary obstructionJ Comput Assist Tomogr 2003 27 307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, M JMitchell, D GIto, KOutwater EK. Biliary dilation: differentiation of benign from malignant causes – value of adding conventional MR imaging to MR cholangiopancreatographyRadiology 2000 214 173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeh, T SJan, Y YTseng, J HMalignant perihilar biliary obstruction: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographic findingsAJR Am J Gastroenterol 2000 95 432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulcher, A STurner, M ACapps, G WHalf-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjectsRadiology 1998 207 21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, M SYu, J SKim, Y HAcute cholecystitis: comparison of MR cholangiography and USRadiology 1998 209 781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulcher, A STurner, M AHam, J MLate biliary complications in right lobe living donor transplantation recipients: imaging findings and therapeutic interventionsJ Comput Assist Tomogr 2002 26 422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, YYamashita, YArakawa, APancreaticobiliary ductal system: value of half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement MR cholangiopancreatography for postoperative evaluationRadiology 2000 215 81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulcher, A STurner, M AMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographyGore, R MLevine, M STextbook of Gastrointestinal RadiologyPhiladelphia, PASaunders 2007 1383Google Scholar
Manfredi, RCostamagna, GBrizi, M GSevere chronic pancreatitis versus suspected pancreatic disease: dynamic MR cholangiopancreatography after secretin stimulationRadiology 2000 214 849CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adamek, H EAlbert, JBreer, HPancreatic cancer detection with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective controlled studyLancet 2000 356 190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez Hanninen, EAmthauer, HHosten, NProspective evaluation of pancreatic tumors: accuracy of MR imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography and MR angiographyRadiology 2002 224 34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Angelica, MBrennan, M FSuriawinata, A AKlimstra, DConlon, K CIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: an analysis of clinicopathologic features and outcomeAnn Surg 2004 239 400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irie, HHonda, HAibe, HMR cholangiopancreatographic differentiation of benign and malignant intraductal mucin-producing tumors of the pancreasAJR Am J Roentgenol 2000 174 1403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koito, KNamieno, TIchimura, TMucin-producing pancreatic tumors: comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyRadiology 1998 208 231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×