Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis with duodenal intubation with MRI after drinking oral contrast agent only (MR enterography) with conventional enteroclysis (conv-E) as reference standard in patients with Crohn’s disease. Forty consecutive patients (22 males and 18 females; mean age 36; range 16–74 years) with proven Crohn’s disease underwent conv-E and MR imaging. Twenty-two patients underwent MR enteroclysis with intubation (MRE) and 18 underwent MR-enterography (MR per OS). Two radiologists reached a consensus about the following imaging findings: luminal distension and visualization of superficial mucosal, mural and mesenteric abnormalities. Standard descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank sum test were used. Statistical significance was inferred at P < 0.05. There was no significant difference in the adequacy of luminal distention between the MRE and conv-E (P = 0.08), and both were statistically superior in comparison to MR per OS in the distension of the jejunum (P < 0.01) and less significant at the ileum and terminal ileum levels (P < 0.05). MRE and conv-E were comparable for the accuracy of superficial mucosal abnormalities; meanwhile conv-E compared with MR per OS was statistically superior (P < 0.01). MRE compared with MR per OS was statistically better when visualizing superficial abnormalities (P < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found in assessing the diagnostic efficacy between MR examinations for the depiction of mural stenosis (P = 0.105) and fistulae (P = 0.67). The number of detected mesenteric findings was significantly higher with both MRE and MR per OS compared to conv-E (P < 0.01). MRE can serve as the diagnostic procedure for initially evaluating patients suspected of having Crohn’s disease. MR per OS may have a role in patients that refuse or have failed intubation and also for follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Horsthuis K, Lavini C, Stoker J (2005) MRI in Crohn’s disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M, Maeda K, Nitta N, Takahashi M, Tsujikawa T, Fujiyama Y, Murata K, Sakamoto T (2004) Cross-sectional Imaging in Crohn’s disease. Radiographics 24:689–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 12(11):2651–2658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Masselli G, Brizi MG, Parrella A, Minordi L, Vecchioli A, Marano P (2004) Crohn’s disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom imaging 29:326–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J, Umschaden M, Haselbach H (2000) Small bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maglinte DT, Siegelman ES, Kelvin FM (2000) MR enteroclysis: the future of small-bowel imaging? Radiology 215(3):639–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW (1979) Rederived values of the eight coefficients of the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Gastroenterology 77(4 Pt 2):843–846

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Barkun A, Chiba N, Enns R, Marcon M, Natsheh S, Pham C, Sadowski D, Vanner S (2006) Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability, and safety—a Canadian association of gastroenterology position paper. Can J Gastroenterol 20(11):699–710

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sood RR, Joubert I, Franklin H, Doyle T, Lomas DJ (2002) Small bowel MRI: comparison of a polyethylene glycol preparation and water as oral contrast media. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:401–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laghi A, Carbone I, Catalano C, Iannaccone R, Paolantonio P, Baeli I, Trenna S, Passariello R (2001) Polyethylenglycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging of the small bowel. AJR 177:1333–1334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maglinte DD, Lappas JC, Heitkamp DE, Bender GN, Kelvin FM (2003) Technical refinements in enteroclysis. Radiol Clin N Am 41:213–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wills JS, Lobis IF, Denstman FJ (1997) Crohn disease: state of the art. Radiology 202:597–610

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cirillo LC, Camera L, Della Noce M, Castiglione F, Mazzacca G, Salvatore M (2000) Accuracy of enteroclysis in Crohn’s disease of the small bowel: a retrospective study. Eur Radiol 10(12):1894–1898

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Herlinger H, Maglinte D (1989) Clinical radiology of the small intestine. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schreyer Ag, Geissler A, Albrich H, Scholmerich J, Feuerbach S, Rogler G, Volk M, Herfath H (2004) Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast in patients with suspected or proven Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2(6):491–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Negaard A, Paulsen V, Sandvik L, Berstard AE, Borthne A, Try K, Lygren I, Storaas T, Klow NE (2007) A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease, the oral contrast and MR enteroclysis. Eur Radiol epub 05052007

  17. Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Sandborn WJ (2003) Assessment of small bowel crohn disease:non-invasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy-feasibility study. Radiology 229:275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maglinte DD (2006) Invited commentary. Radiographics 26:657–662

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gourtsoyiannis NC, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G, Koutroumbakis J, Prassopoulos P, Rousomoustakaki M, Papanikolaou N (2006) Imaging of small intestinal Crohn’s disease: comparison between MR enteroclysis and conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16(9):1915–1925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Lanciotti S, Bertini L, Gualdi G (2006) Assessment of Crohn’s disease in the small bowel: prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis with conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16(12):2817–2827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A, Stock K, Lesske J, Gobel CM, Lotterer E, Nietsch HH, Behrmann C, Fleig WE (2005) Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut 54:1721–1727

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Golder SK, Schreyer AG, Endlicher E, Feuerbach S, Scholmerich J, Kullmann F, Seitz J, Rogler G, Herfarth H (2006) Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis in suspected small bowel disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 21(2):97–104, Mar

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Sharma VK, Heigh RI, Fleischer DE (2006 ) Imaging of small bowel disease: comparison of capsule endoscopy, standard endoscopy, barium examination, and CT. Radiology 238(1):128–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mackalski BA, Berstein CN (2006) New diagnostic imaging tools for inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 55:733–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Masselli G, Brizi MG, Menchini L, Minordi L, Vecchioli A (2005) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis imaging of Crohn’s. Radiol Med 110(3):221–233

    Google Scholar 

  26. Umschaden HW, Gasser J (2003) MR enteroclysis. Radiol Clin N Am 41:231–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Prassopoulos P, Papanikolau N, Grammatikakis J, Rousomoustakaki M, Maris T, Gourtsoyiannis N (2001) MR enteroclysis imaging of Crohn’s disease. Radiographics 21:161–172

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ, Amin Z, Zeegen R, Westaby D, Healy JC (2001) MR imaging evaluation of the activity in Crohn’s disaese. AJR 177:1325–1332

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido, Colaiacomo MC, Cocco A, Montesani C, Caprilli R, Marini M (2006) MR imaging in patients with Crohn disease:value of T2-versus T1-weighted gadolinium enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral supermagnetic contrast agent. Radiology 238(2):517–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology DEA Department, Academic Hospital “Umberto I”. La Sapienza University Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Gabriele Masselli, Emanuele Casciani, Elisabetta Polettini & Gianfranco Gualdi

Authors
  1. Gabriele Masselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emanuele Casciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabetta Polettini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianfranco Gualdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Masselli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masselli, G., Casciani, E., Polettini, E. et al. Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 18, 438–447 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0763-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0763-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation