Background/Aims: The diagnostic potential of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP) has improved as a result of evolving technique. MRCP has the advantage of negligible morbidity and mortality in contrast to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study was performed to evaluate MRCP as a replacement for diagnostic ERCP for the suspicion of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods: From 1998 to 2001, MRCP was performed in 202 patients with a suspicion of CBD stones based on medical history (MH), cholestatic liver function tests (CL), both MH and CL or other reasons. ERCP was performed in all patients where MRCP indicated the presence of CBD stones and in those patients with a persistent strong clinical suspicion for CBD stones despite a negative MRCP. Results: In 25 patients, MRCP suggested CBD stones which were proven with ERCP in 24 patients. Despite a negative MRCP, 27 patients had a subsequent ERCP. None of these patients appeared to have CBD stones. In this group, MRCP resulted in 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity in detecting CBD stones. Follow-up of all patients revealed 5 more patients with persistent clinical suspicion or cholestatic liver function values. Assuming CBD stones in these patients, MRCP had a sensitivity of 83 % and a specificity of 99% for this diagnosis. Conclusion: In the case of CBD stone suspicion, MRCP should be the diagnostic procedure of choice.

Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging, Common bile duct, Stones
1.
Dooms GC, Fisher MR, Higgins CB, Hricak H, Goldberg HI, Margulis AR: MR imaging of the dilated biliary tract. Radiology 1986;158:337–341.
2.
Sherman S, Lehman GA: ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy induced pancreatitis. Pancreas 1991;6:350–367.
3.
Ganguli SC, Pasha TM, Petersen MD: The evolving role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography before and after cholecystectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 1998;12:187–191.
4.
Keulemans YC, Bergman JJ, Wit LT de, Rauwe EA, Huibregtse K, Tytgat GN: Improvement in the management of bile duct injuries? J Am Coll Surg 1998;187:246–254.
5.
Verzakis A, Davides D, Ammori BJ, Martin IG, Larvin M, McMahon MJ: Intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2000;14:1118–1122.
6.
Kimura T, Umehara Y, Yoshida M, Sakuramachi S, Kawabe A, Suzuki K: Laparoscopic ultrasonography and operative cholangiography to prevent residual common bile duct stones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1999;9:124–128.
7.
Laokpessi A, Bouillet P, Sautereau D, Cessot F, Desport JC, Le Sidaner A, Pillegand B: Value of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the preoperative diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2354–2359.
8.
Birth M, Ehlers KU, Delinikolas K, Weiser HF: Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic ultrasonography using a flexible-tip ultrasound probe and intraoperative dynamic cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:30–36.
9.
Teefy SA, Soper NJ, Middleton WD, Balfe DM, Brink JA, Strasberg SM, Callery M: Imaging of the common bile duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Sonography versus videofluoroscopic cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:847–851.
10.
Panasen P, Partanen K, Pikkarainen P, Alhava E, Pirinen A, Janatuinen E: Ultrasonography, CT and ERCP in the diagnosis of choledochal stones. Acta Radiol 1992;33:53–56.
11.
Dong B, Chen M: Improved sonographic visualisation of choledocholithiasis. J Clin Ultrasound 1987;15:185–190.
12.
Polkowski M, Palucki J, Regula J, Tilszer A, Butruk E: Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: A prospective study in non-jaundiced patients. Gut 1999;45:744–749.
13.
Vitale GC, Larson GM, Wieman TJ, Cheadle WG, Miller FB: The use of ERCP in the management of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1993;7:9–11.
14.
Cotton PB: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993;165:474–478.
15.
Koito K, Namieno T, Ichimura T, Yama N, Hareyama M, Morita K, et al: Mucin-producing pancreatic tumors: Comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1998;208:231–237.
16.
Adamek HE, Weitz M, Breer H, Jakobs R, Schilling D, Riemann JF: Value of magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1997;29:741–744.
17.
Guibaud L, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M, Barkun AN: Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: Value of MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenology 1994;163:847–850.
18.
Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W, Abou-Rebyeh H, Hammerstingl R, Vogl T, et al: Clinical significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1997;29:182–187.
19.
Hoyuela C, Cugat E, Bretcha P, Collera P, Espinos J, Marco C: Must ERCP be routinely performed if choledocholithiasis is suspected? Dig Surg 1999;16:411–414.
20.
Rijna H, Kemps WGM, Eijsbouts Q, Meuwissen SGM, Cuesta MA: Preoperative ERCP approach to common bile duct stones: Results of a selective policy. Dig Surg 2000;17:229–233.
21.
Barish MA, Yucel EK, Soto JA, Chuttani R, Ferrucci JT: MR cholangiopancreatography: Efficacy of three-dimensional turbo spin echo technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:295–300.
22.
Dwerryhouse SJ, Brown E, Vipond MN: Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography to detect common bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1998;85:1364–1366.
23.
Lee MG, Lee HJ, Kim MH, Kang EH, Kim YH, Lee SG, et al: Extrahepatic biliary diseases: 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1997;202:663–669.
24.
Yeh TS, Jan YY, Tseng JH, Hwang TL, Jeng LB, Chan MF: Value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography demonstrating major bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1999;86:181–184.
25.
Takehara Y, Ichijo K, Tooyama N, Kodaira N, Yamamoto H, Tatami M, et al: Breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography with a long-echo-train fast spin-echo sequence and a surface coil in chronic pancreatitis. Radiology 1994;192:73–78.
26.
Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, Clarke P, Siegenberg D, Chuttami R, et al: Pancreatic duct: MR cholangiopancreatography with a three-dimensional fast spin-echo technique. Radiology 1995;196:459–464.
27.
Miyazaki T, Yamashita Y, Tang Y, Tsuchigame T, Takahashi M, Sera Y: Single-shot MR cholangiopancreatography of neonates, infants, and young children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:33–37.
28.
Irie H, Honda H, Jimi M, Yokohata K, Chijiiwa K, Kuroiwa T, et al: Value of MR cholangiopancreatography in evaluating choledochal cysts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1381–1385.
29.
Park MS, Yu JS, Kim YH, Kim MJ, Kim JH, Lee S, et al: Acute cholecystitis: Comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography and US. Radiology 1998;209:781–785.
30.
Fulcher AS, Turner MA: Pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:845–850.
31.
Chan YL, Chan AC, Lam WWM, Lee DWN, Chung SSC, Sung JJY: Choledocholithiasis: Comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Radiology 1996;200:85–89.
32.
Guibaud L, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M, Barkun AN: Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis: Diagnosis with MR cholangiography. Radiology 1995;197:109–115.
33.
Boraschi P, Neri E, Bracchini G, Gigoni R, Caramella D, Perri G, et al: Choledocholithiasis: Diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Three-year experience. MRI 1999;17:1245–1253.
34.
Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM: Half-Fourier RARE MR Cholangiopancreatography: Experience in 300 subjects. Radiology 1998;207:21–32.
35.
Varghese JC, Liddell RP, Farrell MA, Murray FE, Osborne DH, Lee MJ: Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and ultrasonography compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol 2000;55:25–35.
36.
Sica GT, Braver J, Cooney MJ, Miller FA, Chai JL, Adams DF: Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with pancreatitis. Radiology 1999;210:605–610.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.