Cargando…

Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis and to compare it to video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in the analysis of suspected small-bowel disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 77 patients who underwent both MR enteroclysis and VCE and compared the findings of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B., Bouman, Koen, Jacobs, Maarten A. J. M., Halloran, Brendan P., Van der Peet, Donald L., Mulder, Chris J. J., Van Kuijk, Cornelis, Van Waesberghe, Jan Hein T. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3549405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22527155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9892-4
_version_ 1782256418434318336
author Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B.
Bouman, Koen
Jacobs, Maarten A. J. M.
Halloran, Brendan P.
Van der Peet, Donald L.
Mulder, Chris J. J.
Van Kuijk, Cornelis
Van Waesberghe, Jan Hein T. M.
author_facet Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B.
Bouman, Koen
Jacobs, Maarten A. J. M.
Halloran, Brendan P.
Van der Peet, Donald L.
Mulder, Chris J. J.
Van Kuijk, Cornelis
Van Waesberghe, Jan Hein T. M.
author_sort Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis and to compare it to video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in the analysis of suspected small-bowel disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 77 patients who underwent both MR enteroclysis and VCE and compared the findings of these studies with the findings of enteroscopy, surgery, or with the results of clinical follow-up lasting ≥2 years. RESULTS: Findings included malignant neoplasms (n = 13), benign neoplasms (n = 10), refractory celiac disease (n = 4), Crohn’s disease (n = 2) and miscellaneous conditions (n = 10). Specificity of MR enteroclysis was higher than that of VCE (0.97 vs. 0.84, P = 0.047), whereas sensitivity was similar (0.79 vs. 0.74, P = 0.591). In 2/32 (6.3%) patients with both negative VCE and negative MR enteroclysis a positive diagnosis was established, compared to 5/11 (45.5%) patients in whom VCE was positive and MR enteroclysis was negative (likelihood ratio 8.1; P = 0.004), 9/11 (81.8%) patients in whom MR enteroclysis was positive and VCE was negative (likelihood ratio 23.5; P < 0.0001), and all 23 patients in whom both VCE and MR enteroclysis showed abnormalities (likelihood ratio 60.8; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VCE and MR enteroclysis are complementary modalities. In our study-population, MR enteroclysis was more specific than VCE, while both produced the same sensitivity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3549405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35494052013-01-23 Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B. Bouman, Koen Jacobs, Maarten A. J. M. Halloran, Brendan P. Van der Peet, Donald L. Mulder, Chris J. J. Van Kuijk, Cornelis Van Waesberghe, Jan Hein T. M. Abdom Imaging Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis and to compare it to video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in the analysis of suspected small-bowel disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 77 patients who underwent both MR enteroclysis and VCE and compared the findings of these studies with the findings of enteroscopy, surgery, or with the results of clinical follow-up lasting ≥2 years. RESULTS: Findings included malignant neoplasms (n = 13), benign neoplasms (n = 10), refractory celiac disease (n = 4), Crohn’s disease (n = 2) and miscellaneous conditions (n = 10). Specificity of MR enteroclysis was higher than that of VCE (0.97 vs. 0.84, P = 0.047), whereas sensitivity was similar (0.79 vs. 0.74, P = 0.591). In 2/32 (6.3%) patients with both negative VCE and negative MR enteroclysis a positive diagnosis was established, compared to 5/11 (45.5%) patients in whom VCE was positive and MR enteroclysis was negative (likelihood ratio 8.1; P = 0.004), 9/11 (81.8%) patients in whom MR enteroclysis was positive and VCE was negative (likelihood ratio 23.5; P < 0.0001), and all 23 patients in whom both VCE and MR enteroclysis showed abnormalities (likelihood ratio 60.8; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VCE and MR enteroclysis are complementary modalities. In our study-population, MR enteroclysis was more specific than VCE, while both produced the same sensitivity. Springer-Verlag 2012-04-18 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3549405/ /pubmed/22527155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9892-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Van Weyenberg, Stijn J. B.
Bouman, Koen
Jacobs, Maarten A. J. M.
Halloran, Brendan P.
Van der Peet, Donald L.
Mulder, Chris J. J.
Van Kuijk, Cornelis
Van Waesberghe, Jan Hein T. M.
Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title_full Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title_fullStr Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title_short Comparison of MR enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
title_sort comparison of mr enteroclysis with video capsule endoscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3549405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22527155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9892-4
work_keys_str_mv AT vanweyenbergstijnjb comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT boumankoen comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT jacobsmaartenajm comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT halloranbrendanp comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT vanderpeetdonaldl comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT mulderchrisjj comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT vankuijkcornelis comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease
AT vanwaesberghejanheintm comparisonofmrenteroclysiswithvideocapsuleendoscopyintheinvestigationofsmallintestinaldisease