• Loredana Adami
  • Maurizio Atzori
  • Paola Cerro
  • Andrea Cortese
  • Pasquale Ialongo
  • Giovanni Regine
Part of the Updates in Surgery book series (UPDATESSURG)


Imaging modalities play an important role in the diagnosis and management of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). Imaging is used for diagnostic purposes as well as in the evaluation of the nature, gravity, and extraintestinal complications of the disease. It also provides information on the degree of inflammation and useful feedback after clinical or surgical therapy. To this end, endoscopy and conventional radiological and cross-sectional imaging methods (ultrasound, CT, and MR) are mainly used. Radiological and cross-sectional imaging tests are particularly significant in the evaluation of the small intestine, given the fact that its endoscopic investigation is incomplete or almost impossible.


Contrast Agent Oral Contrast Agent Intravenous Contrast Agent Magnetic Resonance Enteroclysis Conventional Enteroclysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fanucci A (1994) L’imaging del canale alimentare: un approccio oroscopico. In: Cirillo R, Comino E (eds) Il tubo digerente. Atti del II Corso di aggiornamento in radiologia, TurinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levine MS, Laufer I (1993) The upper gastrointestinal series at a crossroads. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:1131–1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maglinte DDT, Herlinger H (1989) Single contrast and biphasic enteroclysis. In: Herlinger H, Maglinte DDT (eds) Clinical radiology of the small intestine. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 107–119Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Mizio R (2002) Morbo di Crohn del tenue. Atlante di Radiologia Verduci Editore, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maglinte DT, Chernish SM, Kelvin FM et al (1992) Crohn disease of the small intestine: accuracy and relevance of enteroclysis. Radiology 184:541–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon PM, Roulston ME, Nolan DJ (1993) The small bowel enema: a ten year review. Clin Radiol 47:46–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laufer J, Costopoulos L (1978) Early lesions in Crohn’s diesease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130:307–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fanucci A, Cerro P, Fraracci L, Ietto F (1984) Small bowel length measured by radiography. Gastrointest Radiol 9:349–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rossi S (2001) Ecografia addominale in Epato-Gastroenterologia. Testo Atlante. Poletto Editore TorinoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rossi S, Callida F, Martegani A (2004) Mezzi di contrasto in ecografia. Testo Atlante. Poletto Editore, TurinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horsthuis K, Stokkers P, Stoker J (2008) Detection of inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic performance of cross-sectional imaging modalities. Abdom Imaging 33:407–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marc J, Van Outryve ET, Pelckmans PA et al (1991) Value of transrectal ultrasonography in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterol 101:117Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barros N, Cerri GG, Souza Rocha M, Goncalves MO (2000) Sonographic appearences of conglomerated polyps (giant polyposis) in patients with Crohn’s disease. J Clin Ultrasound 28:199–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarrazin J, Wilson SR (1996) Manifestations of Crohn disease at US. Radio Graphics 16:499–503Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saibeni S, Rondonotti E, Iozzelli A et al (2007) Imaging of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease: a review of old and new techniques. World J Gastroenterol 24:3279–3287Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt S, Felley C, Meuwly J et al (2006) CT enteroclysis: technique and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 16:648–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG et al (2006) CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radio Graphics 26:641–666Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M et al (2004) Cross-sectional imaging in Crohn disease. Radio Graphics 24:689–702Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellström M (2002) Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222:337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silva AC, Vens EA, Hara AK et al (2006) Evaluation of benign and malignant rectal lesions with CT colonography and endoscopic correlation. Radio Graphics 26:1085–1099Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perry J, Pickhardt PJ (2004) Differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions seen at CT. Radio Graphics 24:1535–1556Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wittenberg J, Mukesh G, Harisinghani MG et al (2002) Algorithmic approach to CT diagnosis of the abnormal bowel wall. Radio Graphics 22:1093–1109Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J et al (2000) Small bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laghi A, Passariello R (2003) Magnetic resonance in the study of the small bowel. Radiol Med (Torino) 106:1–15Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM et al (2003) Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 228:279–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Debatin JF, Patak MA (1999) MRI of the small and large bowel. Eur Radiol 9:1523–1534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maccioni F, Viscido A, Marini M, Caprilli R (2002) MRI evaluation of Crohn’s disease of the small and large bowel with the use of negative superparamagnetic oral contrast agents. Abdom Imaging 27:384–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Umschaden HW, Gasser J (2003) MR enteroclysis. Radiol Clin N Am 231–248Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Masselli G, Brizi MG, Menchini L et al (2005) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis imaging of Crohn’s disease. Radiol Med 110:221–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schreyer AG, Geissler A, Albrich H et al (2004) Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast inpatients with suspected or proven Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:491–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee JK, Marcos HB, Semelka RC (1998) MR imaging of the small bowel using the HASTE sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:1457–1463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prassopoulos P, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2001) MR enteroclysis imaging of Crohn’s disease. Radiographics 21:S161–S172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2001) MR enteroclisys protocol optimization: comparison between 3D flash with fat saturation after intravenous gadolinium injection and true Fisp sequences. Eur Radiol 11:908–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ et al (2001) MR imaging evaluation of the activity of Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1325–1332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rottgen R, Herzog H, Lopez Hanninen E et al (2005) Combination of dynamic MR enteroclysis (Sellink) and MR colonography in diagnose Crohn’s disease. Rofo 177:1131–1138PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loredana Adami
    • 1
  • Maurizio Atzori
    • 1
  • Paola Cerro
    • 2
  • Andrea Cortese
    • 1
  • Pasquale Ialongo
    • 1
  • Giovanni Regine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySan Camillo-Forlanini HospitalRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNuovo Regina Margherita HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations