Comparison of the Diagnostic Value of MRCP, CT, and Ultrasonography in Choledochal Stones with the Results of ERCP: Evidence from 1152 Case

E. Uğurlu, O. Dere, S. Yılmaz
{"title":"Comparison of the Diagnostic Value of MRCP, CT, and Ultrasonography in Choledochal Stones with the Results of ERCP: Evidence from 1152 Case","authors":"E. Uğurlu, O. Dere, S. Yılmaz","doi":"10.5455/umj.20221205103820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography (US) are widely used in the diagnosis of choledochal stones. This study aims to determine the sensitivity and diagnostic contribution of US, CT, and MRCP in detecting common bile duct stones and to compare them with ERCP. Materials and Methods: The study included 1152 patients who underwent ERCP diagnosed with choledochal stones. Initially, each patient underwent USG, CT, and MRCP. ERCP was performed 2-7 days later. The results were compared with the ERCP results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and F1 score were calculated. Results: Compared to ERCP, the most effective method in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is MRCP (F score: 0.84), CT (F score: 0.73), MR+BT (F score: 0.75), MR+BT+USG (F score: 0.55), and US (F score: 0.43). Conclusions: ERCP is the gold standard in treating stones in the common bile duct. However, since this method is invasive, its use for diagnostic purposes has decreased due to the possibility of complications. In diagnosing common choledochal stones, MRCP alone is sufficient regardless of other imaging methods.","PeriodicalId":23051,"journal":{"name":"THE ULUTAS MEDICAL JOURNAL","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE ULUTAS MEDICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/umj.20221205103820","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

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography (US) are widely used in the diagnosis of choledochal stones. This study aims to determine the sensitivity and diagnostic contribution of US, CT, and MRCP in detecting common bile duct stones and to compare them with ERCP. Materials and Methods: The study included 1152 patients who underwent ERCP diagnosed with choledochal stones. Initially, each patient underwent USG, CT, and MRCP. ERCP was performed 2-7 days later. The results were compared with the ERCP results. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and F1 score were calculated. Results: Compared to ERCP, the most effective method in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is MRCP (F score: 0.84), CT (F score: 0.73), MR+BT (F score: 0.75), MR+BT+USG (F score: 0.55), and US (F score: 0.43). Conclusions: ERCP is the gold standard in treating stones in the common bile duct. However, since this method is invasive, its use for diagnostic purposes has decreased due to the possibility of complications. In diagnosing common choledochal stones, MRCP alone is sufficient regardless of other imaging methods.
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
1152例胆总管结石MRCP、CT、超声与ERCP诊断价值的比较
内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)、磁共振胆管造影(MRCP)、计算机断层扫描(CT)和超声检查(US)在胆管结石的诊断中应用广泛。本研究旨在确定US、CT和MRCP在检测胆总管结石中的敏感性和诊断贡献,并与ERCP进行比较。材料与方法:本研究纳入1152例经ERCP诊断为胆总管结石的患者。最初,每位患者接受USG、CT和MRCP检查。2 ~ 7 d后行ERCP。结果与ERCP结果比较。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和F1评分。结果:与ERCP相比,MRCP (F分:0.84)、CT (F分:0.73)、MR+BT (F分:0.75)、MR+BT+USG (F分:0.55)、US (F分:0.43)是诊断胆总管结石最有效的方法。结论:ERCP是治疗胆总管结石的金标准。然而,由于这种方法是侵入性的,由于并发症的可能性,其用于诊断目的的使用已经减少。在诊断常见胆总管结石时,MRCP单独是足够的,而不考虑其他成像方法。
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
The Effect of Dietary Protein Quality on Short-Term Satiety and Daily Energy Intake An Unusual Mid-Line Nasal Mass in a Child: A Case Report The Effect of Midazolam and Magnesium Sulfate on Preoperative Anxiety in Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty Operation The Relationship of Endocan to Disease Severity in Psoriasis: Effect of Endocan on VGEF, CXCL12 and NGF Levels Profoundal Effects of Microcystin-LR Induced Cardiotoxicity in Mammals
×
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