Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 64–75 | Cite as

MR cholangiopancreatography in children: feasibility, safety, and initial experience

  • Lisa Delaney
  • Kimberly E. ApplegateEmail author
  • Boaz Karmazyn
  • M. Fatih Akisik
  • S. Gregory Jennings
Original Article



The indications for MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in children, and its safety and findings, might differ from those in adults and are not well described.


To investigate the safety, feasibility, and accuracy of MRCP in children.

Materials and methods

We reviewed all prospective MRCP reports, noting the indication, the use of secretin, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) findings, and patient outcomes. Two readers reviewed each MRCP study by consensus to rate duct visualization and compare pancreatic duct sizes before and after secretin administration (paired t-test). The likelihood of a normal versus an abnormal MRCP study was compared by gender, pancreatitis as the primary indication, secretin use, and whether ERCP was performed (Fisher’s exact test), as well as age (t-test).


A total of 85 MRCP studies were performed in children (mean age 10.3 years), most commonly for evaluation of pancreatitis (n=47, 55%); 41 (48%) used secretin and 39 (46%) used a negative oral contrast agent. Of the 85 studies, 72 (85%) had excellent image quality and 43 were normal. ERCP was performed after 16 of the 85 MRCP studies (19%); the diagnoses were concordant with those of MRCP in 13 (81%). There were 42 abnormal MRCP studies, and these were more likely to be in girls (P=0.03) and in children who had undergone ERCP (P<0.01). Secretin and the negative oral contrast agent were well-tolerated. Secretin improved duct visualization (P<0.001).


MRCP safely and accurately depicted pancreaticobiliary anatomy in children. The use of secretin improved visualization of the pancreatic duct.


Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Secretin Pancreatitis Children 


  1. 1.
    Robertson MA (1996) Pancreatitis. In: Walker WA (ed) Pediatric gastrointestinal disease, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 1451–1452Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benifla M, Weizman Z (2003) Acute pancreatitis in childhood: analysis of literature data. J Clin Gastroenterol 37:169–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Francois E, Deviere J (2002) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 34:882–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barish M, Soto J, Ferrucci J (1997) Magnetic resonance pancreatography. Endoscopy 29:487–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Punwani S, Gillams AR, Lees WR (2003) Non-invasive quantification of pancreatic exocrine function using secretin-stimulated MRCP. Eur Radiol 13:273–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akisik M, Sandrasegaran K, Aisen A et al (2006) Dynamic secretin-enhanced MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiographics 26:665–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guibaud L, Lachaud A, Touraine R et al (1998) MR cholangiography in neonates and infants: feasibility and preliminary applications. AJR 170:27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arcement CM, Meza MP, Arumanla S et al (2001) MRCP in evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease in children. Pediatr Radiol 31:92–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin JTH, Chen YH, Ni YH et al (2001) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography diagnosed pancreatitis associated choledochal cyst: report of one case. Acta Paediatr Taiwan 42:363–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shimizu T, Suzuki R, Yamashiro Y et al (2001) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in assessing the cause of acute pancreatitis in children. Pancreas 22:196–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miyazaki T, Yamashita Y, Tang Y et al (1998) Single-shot MR cholangiopancreatography of neonates, infants, and young children. AJR 170:33–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egelhoff JC, Ball WS, Koch BL et al (1997) Safety and efficacy of sedation in children using a structured sedation program. AJR 168:1259–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ueno E, Takada Y, Yoshida I et al (1998) Pancreatic diseases: evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas 16:418–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Institutes of Health (2002) NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 19:1–26Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    AMAG Pharmaceuticals (2007) GastroMARK package insert. Cited 27 Sept 2007
  16. 16.
    Manfredi R, Costamagna G, Brizi M et al (2000) Severe chronic pancreatitis versus suspected pancreatic disease: dynamic MR cholangiopancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 214:849–855PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyton AC (1991) Textbook of medical physiology, 8th edn. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    eMedicine (2007) Pancreas divisum. Cited 27 Sept 2007
  19. 19.
    Gillams AR, Kurzawinski T, Lees WR (2006) Diagnosis of duct disruption and assessment of pancreatic leak with dynamic secretin-stimulated MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR 186:499–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shanmugam V, Beattie GC, Yule SR et al (2005) Is magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging? Br J Radiol 78:888–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matos C, Cappeliez O, Winant C et al (2002) MR imaging of the pancreas: a pictorial tour. Radiographics 22:e2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soto JA, Lucy BC, Stuhlfaut JW (2005) Pancreas divisum: depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 235:503–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Delaney
    • 1
  • Kimberly E. Applegate
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Boaz Karmazyn
    • 1
  • M. Fatih Akisik
    • 1
  • S. Gregory Jennings
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyRiley Hospital for ChildrenIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations