Advertisement

Diseases of the Small Bowel, Including the Duodenum — MRI

  • Karin A. Herrmann

Abstract

For decades, barium fluoroscopy studies have been the standard of reference to investigate small bowel diseases. Since the small bowel was not accessible to endoscopic techniques, these studies represented the only non-invasive diagnostic approach to the intestine. Both bowel follow-through and small bowel enteroclysis yielded fairly good results, with sensitivities and specificities of, respectively, 98.3% and 99.3% for Crohn’s disease (CD) [1] and 61–95% for neoplastic disease [2], notably in the assessment of the intestinal mucosa due to the high spatial resolution obtained with these techniques. However, their limitations are that they provide almost exclusively intraluminal information and are associated with considerably high radiation exposure, up to 10–18 mSv. The technical advances in cross-sectional imaging achieved with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over the past 10 years have tremendously improved image quality in the abdomen, thus encouraging small bowel imaging.

Keywords

Small Bowel Bowel Loop Crohn Disease Small Bowel Disease Submucosal Edema 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maglinte DD, Chernish SM, Kelvin FM et al (1992) Crohn disease of the small intestine: accuracy and relevance of enteroclysis. Radiology 184:541–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bessette JR, Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Chernish SM (1989) Primary malignant tumors in the small bowel: a comparison of the small-bowel enema and conventional follow-through examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 153:741–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee SS, Kim AY, Yang SK et al (2009) Crohn disease of the small bowel: comparison of CT enterography, MR enterography, and small-bowel follow-through as diagnostic techniques. Radiology 251:751–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim KW, Ha HK (2004) MRI for small bowel diseases. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 12:637–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maglinte DDT, Gourtsoyiannis N, Rex D et al (2003) Classification of small bowel Crohn’s subtypes based on multimodality imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 41:285–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sempere GAJ, Sanjuan VM, Chulia EM et al (2005) MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1829–1835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A et al (2006) MR imaging in patients with Crohn disease: value of T2-versus T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral superparamagnetic contrast agent. Radiology 238:517–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2004) Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel with MR and conventional enteroclysis: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 14:1017–1024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prassopoulos P, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2003) MR enteroclysis imaging of Crohn disease. Radiographics 21 Spec No:S161–172Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Punwani S, Rodriguez-Justo M, Bainbridge A et al (2009) Mural inflammation in Crohn disease: location-matched histologic validation of MR imaging features. Radiology 252:712–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tillack C, Seiderer J, Brand S et al (2008) Correlation of magnetic resonance enteroclysis (MRE) and wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions in crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14:1219–1228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seiderer J, Herrmann K, Diepolder H et al (2007) Double-balloon enteroscopy versus magnetic resonance enteroclysis in diagnosing suspected small-bowel Crohn’s disease: results of a pilot study. Scand J Gastroenterol 42:1376–1385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrmann KA, Michaely HJ, Zech CJ et al (2006) Internal fistulas in Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 31:675–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrmann KA, Michaely HJ, Seiderer J et al (2006) The “starsign” in magnetic resonance enteroclysis: a characteristic finding of internal fistulae in Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 41:239–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Masselli G, Polettini E, Casciani E et al (2009) Small-bowel neoplasms: prospective evaluation of MR enteroclysis. Radiology 251:743–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horton KM, Kamel I, Hofmann L, Fishman EK (2004) Carcinoid tumors of the small bowel: a multi-technique imaging approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:559–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmid-Tannwald C, Zech CJ, Panteleon A et al (2009). Characteristic imaging features of carcinoid tumors of the small bowel in MR enteroclysis. Radiologe 49:242–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burkill GJ, Badran M, Al-Muderis O et al (2003) Malignant Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Distribution imaging features and pattern of metastatic spread. Radiology 226:527–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schlemmer M, Sourbron SP, Schinwald N et al (2009) Perfusion patterns of metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor lesions under specific molecular therapy. Eur J Radiol 27: 278–284Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin A. Herrmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospitals MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations