Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 90–91 | Cite as

Enterclysis versus enterography: the unsettled issue

  • Michael R. Torkzad
  • Thomas C. Lauenstein
Gastrointestinal

Sir,

As radiologists interested in abdominal imaging with MRI, we read the interesting work by Masselli et al. [1] in the March issue of European Radiology. We have been using MR enterography (MREg) for quite some time and we have felt that we have had no need to use MR enteroclysis (MREc) in patients with Crohn’s disease. Reading the article by Masselli and co-workers, therefore, was very fascinating. In their work, they found a significant difference between the accuracy of MREc and MREg in finding mucosal lesions compared with conventional enteroclysis (CE), which served as the ‘gold standard’. There remain, however, some unanswered questions.

Statistical questions:

The authors have made two sets of comparisons, one directly between MREc and MREg, and the other indirectly by comparing them with CE. When comparing MREc and MREg directly, one has to either preferably choose the same population, or at least ensure that the two populations are not statistically different. The authors...

Keywords

Metoclopramide Capsule Endoscopy Mucosal Lesion Small Bowel Distension European Radiology 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Gualdi G (2008) Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 18:438–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fork FT, Aabakken L (2007) Capsule enteroscopy and radiology of the small intestine. Eur Radiol 17:3103–3111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torkzad MR, Vargas R, Tanaka C, Blomqvist L (2007) Value of cine MRI for better visualization of the proximal small bowel in normal individuals. Eur Radiol 17:2964–2968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuehle CA, Ajaj W, Ladd SC, Massing S, Barkhausen J, Lauenstein TC (2006) Hydro-MRI of the small bowel: effect of contrast volume, timing of contrast administration, and data acquisition on bowel distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W375–W385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Langhorst J, Kuehle C, Goyen M, Zoepf T, Ruehm SG, Gerken G, Debatin JF, Goehde SC (2005) Small bowel hydro-MR imaging for optimized ileocecal distension in Crohn’s disease: should an additional rectal enema filling be performed? J Magn Reson Imaging 22:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macari M, Megibow AJ, Balthazar EJ (2007) A pattern approach to the abnormal small bowel: observations at MDCT and CT enterography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1344–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, Johnson CD, Fidler JL, Barlow JM, Bruesewitz MR, McCollough CH, Sandborn WJ, Loftus EV Jr, Harmsen WS, Crownhart BS (2006) Crohn Disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast-enhanced CT Enterography–correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 238:505–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gourtsoyiannis NC, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G, Koutroumbakis J, Prassopoulos P, Rousomoustakaki M, Papanikolaou N (2006) Imaging of small intestinal Crohn’s disease: comparison between MR enteroclysis and conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16:1915–1925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Potthast S, Rieber A, Von Tirpitz C, Wruk D, Adler G, Brambs HJ (2002) Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in Crohn’s disease: a comparison. Eur Radiol 12:1416–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanger GJ, Alpers DH (2008) Development of drugs for gastrointestinal motor disorders: translating science to clinical need. Neurogastroenterol Motil 20:177–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Akademiska University Hospital UppsalaUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations