Comparison of MRCP and ERCP in the evaluation of common bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.

Anand Kumar, Nihar Ranjan Mohanty, Madhusmita Mohanty, Sashibhusan Dash
{"title":"Comparison of MRCP and ERCP in the evaluation of common bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.","authors":"Anand Kumar,&nbsp;Nihar Ranjan Mohanty,&nbsp;Madhusmita Mohanty,&nbsp;Sashibhusan Dash","doi":"10.3389/fmedt.2023.946555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive imaging modality that has high diagnostic accuracy for a wide range of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still the gold standard for the exploration of the biliopancreatic region.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with that of ERCP in the diagnosis of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct pathologies detected on MRCP were subsequently evaluated by ERCP in this observational study. A comparison of MRCP findings with ERCP was made.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MRCP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 88.1%, 94.4%, 97.3%, 72.7%, and 90%, respectively, in diagnosing choledocholithiasis in comparison to ERCP. For CBD dilation, the sensitivity was 90.91%, specificity was 93.75% and the PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 97.56%, 78.95%, and 91.67%, respectively, for MRCP. In CBD stricture, MRCP showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 83.33%, 97.92%, 90.91%, 95.92%, and 95%, respectively. In pancreatic duct dilatation, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all 100%. Pancreatic duct stricture showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. For the diagnosis of periampullary carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rate of MRCP were 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No significant difference was found between MRCP and ERCP in diagnosing those six pathologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12599,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medical Technology","volume":"5 ","pages":"946555"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10374843/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medical Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2023.946555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive imaging modality that has high diagnostic accuracy for a wide range of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still the gold standard for the exploration of the biliopancreatic region.

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with that of ERCP in the diagnosis of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.

Material and methods: A total of 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct pathologies detected on MRCP were subsequently evaluated by ERCP in this observational study. A comparison of MRCP findings with ERCP was made.

Results: MRCP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 88.1%, 94.4%, 97.3%, 72.7%, and 90%, respectively, in diagnosing choledocholithiasis in comparison to ERCP. For CBD dilation, the sensitivity was 90.91%, specificity was 93.75% and the PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 97.56%, 78.95%, and 91.67%, respectively, for MRCP. In CBD stricture, MRCP showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 83.33%, 97.92%, 90.91%, 95.92%, and 95%, respectively. In pancreatic duct dilatation, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all 100%. Pancreatic duct stricture showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. For the diagnosis of periampullary carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rate of MRCP were 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively.

Conclusion: No significant difference was found between MRCP and ERCP in diagnosing those six pathologies.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MRCP和ERCP在评估胆总管和胰管病变中的比较。
背景:磁共振胰胆管造影(MRCP)是一种非侵入性的成像方式,对广泛的胆管和胰管病变具有很高的诊断准确性。内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)仍是胆胰区探查的金标准。目的:比较MRCP与ERCP对胆管和胰管病变的诊断准确性。材料和方法:在本观察性研究中,共60例MRCP检测到胆总管(CBD)和胰管病变的患者随后进行ERCP评估。比较MRCP与ERCP的结果。结果:与ERCP相比,MRCP诊断胆总管结石的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性分别为88.1%、94.4%、97.3%、72.7%和90%。对于CBD扩张,敏感性为90.91%,特异性为93.75%,MRCP的PPV、NPV和准确性分别为97.56%、78.95%和91.67%。在CBD狭窄中,MRCP的敏感性为83.33%,特异性为97.92%,PPV、NPV和准确性分别为90.91%、95.92%和95%。胰管扩张的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV、准确性均为100%。胰管狭窄的敏感性为80%,特异性为98%,PPV为88.89%,NPV为96.08%,准确性为95%。对于壶腹周围癌的诊断,MRCP的敏感性为80%,特异性为98%,PPV为88.89%,NPV为96.08%,准确率为95%。结论:MRCP与ERCP对上述6种病理的诊断无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Case Report: The effect of automated manual lymphatic drainage therapy on lymphatic contractility in 4 distinct cases Detection of natural autoimmunity to ghrelin in diabetes mellitus Ensuring safety and efficacy in combination products: regulatory challenges and best practices Augmented reality-based software (Echo-QR) for guiding the echographic probe toward the acoustic window: a pilot study Ethical considerations in the regulation and use of herbal medicines in the European Union
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1