MR imaging of small and large bowel

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978968.012

Chapter 10 - MR imaging of small and large bowel

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011

Manon L. W. Ziech ,

Marije P. van der Paardt ,

Aart J. Nederveen and

Jaap Stoker

Edited by

Ihab R. Kamel and

Elmar M. Merkle

Show author details

Ihab R. Kamel: Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Elmar M. Merkle: Affiliation:
Duke University School of Medicine, North Carolina

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The bowel is an organ which was not easily and accurately assessable until the introduction of cross-sectional imaging and newer endoscopic techniques. The location, length, and bowel peristalsis were major hurdles which were first overcome by the introduction of conventional radiology. Barium follow-through examinations and conventional enteroclysis gave valuable information on the presence of stenoses and mucosal lesions while barium enema and double contrast barium enema were used primarily for detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors (adenomatous polyps). Disadvantages of these techniques were the lack of detailed information on both mural and extramural abnormalities and the resulting mediocre accuracy. Furthermore, the ionizing radiation exposure was a major drawback of these examinations especially as these often have to be repeated for treatment monitoring or screening of disease recurrence.

Type: Chapter
Information: Body MR Imaging at 3 Tesla , pp. 134 - 149

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978968.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

de Bazelaire, CRofsky, NMDuhamel, GCombined T2* and T1 measurements for improved perfusion and permeability studies in high field using dynamic contrast enhancementEur Radiol 2006 9 2083CrossRef Google Scholar

van der Paardt, MPZijta, FMStoker, JMR imaging of the colonImaging Med 2010 2 195CrossRef Google Scholar

Stoker, JMR Imaging of the Gastrointestinal TractHeidelbergSpringer, 2010CrossRef Google Scholar

Schindera, STMerkle, EMDale, BMAbdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T what is the ultimate gain in signal-to-noise ratio?Acad Radiol 2006 10 1236CrossRef Google Scholar

Saar, BGschossmann, JMBonel, HMEvaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image qualityInvest Radiol 2008 8 580CrossRef Google Scholar

Foxall, DLFrequency-modulated steady-state free precession imagingMagn Reson Med 2002 3 502CrossRef Google Scholar

Oto, AZhu, FKulkarni, KEvaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection of bowel inflammation in patients with Crohn's diseaseAcad Radiol 2009 5 597CrossRef Google Scholar

Horsthuis, KBipat, SBennink, RJInflammatory bowel disease diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studiesRadiology 2008 1 64CrossRef Google Scholar

van Gemert-Horsthuis, KFlorie, JHommes, DWFeasibility of evaluating Crohn's disease activity at 3.0 TeslaJ Magn Reson Imaging 2006 2 340CrossRef Google Scholar

Horsthuis, KBipat, SStokkers, PCStoker, JMagnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn's disease: a systematic reviewEur Radiol 2009 6 1450CrossRef Google Scholar

Langhorst, JKuhle, CAAjaj, WMR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptanceInflamm Bowel Dis 2007 8 1001CrossRef Google Scholar

Rimola, JRodriguez, SGarcia-Bosch, ORole of 3.0-T MR colonography in the evaluation of inflammatory bowel diseaseRadiographics 2009 3 701CrossRef Google Scholar

Punwani, SRodriguez-Justo, MBainbridge, AMural inflammation in Crohn disease: location-matched histologic validation of MR imaging featuresRadiology 2009 3 712CrossRef Google Scholar

Negaard, APaulsen, VSandvik, LA prospective randomized comparison between two MR imaging studies of the small bowel in Crohn's disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysisEur Radiol 2007 9 2294CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, CDChen, MHToledano, AYAccuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancersN Engl J Med 2008 12 1207CrossRef Google Scholar

Zijta, FMBipat, SStoker, JMagnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studiesEur Radiol 2010 5 1031CrossRef Google Scholar

Ajaj, WRuehm, SGLauenstein, TDark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography in patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis: a feasibility studyEur Radiol 2005 11 2316CrossRef Google Scholar

Basaran, ABasaran, MDiagnosis of acute appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic reviewObstet Gynecol Surv 2009 7 481CrossRef Google Scholar

Wessling, JFischbach, RBorchert, ADetection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantomRadiology 2006 1 125CrossRef Google Scholar

Rottgen, RHerzog, HBogen, PMR colonoscopy at 3.0 T: comparison with 1.5T in vivo and a colon modelClin Imaging 2006 4 248CrossRef Google Scholar