Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 9, pp 1086–1092 | Cite as

Comparison of respiratory-triggered 3-D fast spin-echo and single-shot fast spin-echo radial slab MR cholangiopancreatography images in children

  • Govind B. ChavhanEmail author
  • Abeer Almehdar
  • Rahim Moineddin
  • Sumeet Gupta
  • Paul S. Babyn
Original Article



The two most commonly performed magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) sequences, 3-D fast spin-echo (3-D FSE) and single-shot fast spin-echo radial slabs (radial slabs), have not been compared in children.


The purpose of this study was to compare 3-D FSE and radial slabs MRCP sequences on a 3-T scanner to determine their ability to show various segments of pancreaticobiliary tree and presence of artifacts in children.

Materials and methods

We reviewed 79 consecutive MRCPs performed in 74 children on a 3-T scanner. We noted visibility of major ducts on 3-D FSE and radial slabs. We noted the order of branching of ducts in the right and left hepatic ducts and the degree of visibility of the pancreatic duct. Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar and signed rank tests.


There was no significant difference in the visibility of major bile ducts and the order of branching in the right hepatic lobe between sequences. A higher order of branching in the left lobe was seen on radial slabs than 3-D FSE (mean order of branching 2.82 versus 2.27; P-value = 0.0002). The visibility of pancreatic duct was better on radial slabs as compared to 3-D FSE (mean value of 1.53 vs. 0.90; P-value < 0.0001). 3-D FSE sequence was artifact‐free in 25/79 (31.6%) MRCP exams as compared to radial slabs, which were artifact-free in 18/79 (22.8%) MRCP exams (P-value = 0.0001).


There is no significant difference in the visibility of major bile ducts between 3-D FSE and radial slab MRCP sequences at 3-T in children. However, radial slab MRCP shows a higher order of branching in the left hepatic lobe and superior visibility of the pancreatic duct than 3-D FSE.


MRCP Children 3-D FSE Single-shot radial slabs 3 tesla (3 T) 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Manson D et al (2008) Pediatric MR cholangiopancreatography: principles, technique, and clinical application. Radiographics 28:1951–1962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Delaney L, Applegate KE, Karmazyn B et al (2008) MR cholangiopancreatography in children: feasibility, safety, and initial experience. Pediatr Radiol 38:64–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tipnis NA, Dua KS, Werlin SL (2008) A retrospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 46:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tipnis NA, Werlin SL (2007) The use of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in children. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 9:225–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chavhan GB, Roberts E, Moineddin R et al (2008) Primary sclerosing cholangitis in children: utility of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Pediatr Radiol 38:868–873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Palmucci S, Mauro LA, Coppolino M et al (2010) Evaluation of the biliary and pancreatic system with 2D SSFSE, breathhold 3D FRFSE and respiratory-triggered 3D FRFSE sequences. Radiol Med 115:467–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masui T, Katayama M, Kobayashi S et al (2006) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparison of respiratory-triggered three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo with parallel imaging technique and breath-hold half-Fourier two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo technique. Radiat Med 24:202–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cova M, Stacul F, Cester G et al (2003) MR cholangiopancreatography: comparison of 2D single-shot fast spin-echo and 3D fast spin-echo sequences. Radiol Med 106:178–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sodickson A, Mortele KJ, Barish MA et al (2006) Three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo MRCP: comparison with two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 238:549–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isoda H, Kataoka M, Maetani Y et al (2007) MRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:1000–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS et al (2010) High spatial resolution 3D MR cholangiography with high sampling efficiency technique (SPACE): comparison of 3 T vs. 1.5 T. Eur J Radiol 73:114–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J et al (2006) 3.0- versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:516–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Onishi H, Kim T, Hori M et al (2009) MR cholangiopancreatography at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study with MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 T for clinical patients. Invest Radiol 44:559–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Govind B. Chavhan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abeer Almehdar
    • 1
  • Rahim Moineddin
    • 2
  • Sumeet Gupta
    • 1
  • Paul S. Babyn
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic ImagingThe Hospital for Sick Children and University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Medical ImagingRoyal University HospitalSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations