Small Bowel

  • Sofia Gourtsoyianni
  • Nicholas C. Gourtsoyiannis
  • Nickolas Papanikolaou
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

MR imaging (MRI) of the small bowel using advanced technology can guarantee detailed morphologic evaluation of the bowel wall and the mesenteries, due to its superb soft tissue contrast, the functional information it may provide, its direct multiplanar capabilities, and lack of radiation exposure.

Adequate bowel distention, homogeneous lumen opacification throughout the entire bowel lumen, application of ultrafast sequences, and use of multiple contrast mechanisms, including enhancement and motility patterns, are the cornerstones for an optimal MRI examination.

Inflammatory or neoplastic diseases, featuring bowel wall abnormalities, extraintestinal manifestations and complications and, to a lesser extent, mucosal abnormalities can be correctly identified on MRI. Furthermore, accurate individual lesion detection and disease activity assessments, provided by MRI, may successfully address clinical questions related to the classification of Crohn disease subtypes.

Keywords

Small Bowel Mesenteric Lymph Node Crohn Disease True FISP 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P (2000) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the small bowel using a True-FISP sequence after enteroclysis with water solution. Invest Radiol 35:707–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J, Umschaden M, Haselbach H (2000) Small-bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N (2005) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Semin ultrasound, CT MRI 26:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N (2008) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis of the small bowel. In: Gore R, Levine M (eds) Textbook of gastrointestinal radiology. Saunders, Elsevier, pp 765–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Iafrate F, Altomari F, Miglio C, Passariello R (2002) Oral contrast agent for MRI of the bowel. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13:389–396Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ajaj W, Goyen M, Schneemann H, Kuehle C, Nuefer M, Ruehm SG, Goehde SC, Lauenstein TC (2004) Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol 14(3):458–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kivelitz D, Gehl HB, Heuck A, Krahe T, Taupitz M, Lodemann KP, Hamm B (1999) Ferric ammonium citrate as a positive bowel contrast agent for MR Imaging of the upper abdomen. Safety and diagnostic efficacy. Acta Radiol 40: 429–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hahn PF (1991) Advances in contrast enhanced MR imaging. Gastrointestinal contrast agents. Am J Roentgenol 156: 252–254Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Small WC, DeSimone-Macchi D, Parker JR, Sukerkar A, Hahn PF, Rubin DL, Zelch JV, Kuhlman JE, Outwater EK, Weinreb JC, Brown JJ, de Lange EE, Woodward PJ, Arildsen R, Foster GS, Runge VM, Aisen AM, Muroff LR, Thoeni RF, Parisky YR, Tanenbaum LN, Totterman S, Herfkens RJ, Knudsen J, Bernardino ME et al (1999) A multisite phase III study of the safety and efficacy of a new manganese chloride-based gastrointestinal contrast agent for MRI of the abdomen and pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:15–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubin DL, Muller HH, Young SW (1992) Formulation of radiographically detectable gastrointestinal contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: effects of barium sulfate additive on MR contrast agent effectiveness. Magn Reson Med 23:154–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faber SC, Stehling MK, Holzknecht N, Gauger J, Helmberger T, Reiser M (1997) Pathologic conditions in the small bowel: findings at fat-suppressed gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging with an optimized suspension of oral magnetic particles. Radiology 205:278–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell DG, Vinitski S, Mohamed FB, Mammone JF, Haidet K, Rifkin MD (1991) Comparison of Kaopectate with barium for negative and positive enteric contrast at MR imaging. Radiology 181:475–480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mattrey RF, Trambert MA, Brown JJ, Young SW, Bruneton JN, Wesbey GE, Balsara ZN (1994) Perflubron as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging: results of a phase III clinical trial. Radiology 191:841–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maccioni F, Viscido A, Broglia L, Marrollo M, Masciangelo R, Caprilli R, Rossi P (2000) Evaluation of Crohn’s disease activity with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 25:219–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P (2001) MR Enteroclysis protocol optimization: comparison between 3D FLASH with fat saturation after intravenous gadolinium injection and true FISP sequences. Eur Radiol 11:908–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prassopoulos P, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Roussomoustakaki M, Maris T, Gourtsoyiannis N (2001) MR Enteroclysis imaging findings in Crohn’s disease. Radiographics 21:S161–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(9):1915–1925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 12:2651–2658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryan ER, Heaslip ISE (2008) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis compared with conventional enteroclysis and computed tomography enteroclysis: a critical appraised topic. Abdom Imaging 33:34–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G, Prassopoulos P, Roussomoustakaki M (2004) Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel with MR and conventional enteroclysis: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 14:1017–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gourtsoyianni S, Gourtsoyianni S, Papanikolaou N, Amanakis E, Bourikas L, Roussomoustakaki M, Grammatikakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N (2009) Crohn’s disease lymphadenopathy: MR findings. Eur J Radiol 69(3): 425–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrmann HK, KA MHJ, Seiderer J, Ochsenkuehn T, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2006) The “star-sign” in magnetic resonance enteroclysis: a characteristic finding of internal fistulae in Crohn’s disease Scandinavian. J Gastroenterol 41:239–241Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhu J, Cong XuJ-R, H-X ZY (2008) Updating magnetic resonance imaging of small bowel: imaging protocols and clinical indications. World J Gastroenterol. 14:3403–3409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ajaj W, Goyen M, Schneimann H, Kuehle C, Nuefer M, Ruehm SG, Goehde SC, Lauenstein TC (2005) Oral contrast agents for small bowel distention in MRI: influence of the osmolarity for small bowel distention. Eur Radiol 15:1400–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magnano G, Granata C, Barabino A, Magnaguagno F, Rossi U, Calevo MG, Toma P (2003) Polyethylene glycol and contrast-enhanced MRI of Cronhn’s disease in children: preliminary experience. Pediatr Radiol 33:385–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schunk K, Kern A, Oberholzer K, Kalden P, Mayer I, Orth T, Wanitschke R (2000) Hydro-MRI in Crohn’s disease. Appraisal of disease activity. Invest Radiol 35:431–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ, Amin Z, Zeegen R, Westaby D, Healy JC (2001) MR Imaging evaluation of the activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1325–1332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shoenut JP, Semelka RC, Magro CM, Silverman R, Yaffe CS, Micflikier AB (1994) Comparison of MRI and endoscopy in distinguishing the type and severity of inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 19:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sempere GA, Sanjuan V, Chulia E, Benages A, Toyosato AT, Canelles P et al (2005) MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease. Am J Roentgenol 184: 1829–1235Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Florie J, Wasser MN, Arts-Cieslik K, Akkerman EM, Siersema PD, Stoker J (2006) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the bowel wall for assessment of disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Am J Roentgenol 186(5):1384–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee SS, Ha HK, Yang SK, Kim AY, Kim TK, Kim PN, Lee MG, Myung SJ, Jung HY, Kim JH, Min YI (2002) CT of prominent pericolic or perienteric vasculature in patients with Crohn’s disease: correlation with clinical disease activity and findings on barium studies. Am J Roentgenol 179:1029–1036Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Bays D (2005) Primary tumors of the small intestine. In: Gourtsoyiannis NC, Ros P (eds) Radiologic – pathologic correlations: from head to toe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Semelka RC, John G, Kelekis N, Burdeny DA, Ascher SM (1996) Small bowel neoplastic disease: demonstration by MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:855–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lienemann A, Sprenger D, Steitz HO, Korell M, Reiser M (2000) Detection and Mapping of intraabdominal adhesions by using functional cine MR imaging: preliminary results. Radiology 217:421–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Low RN, Chen SC, Barone R (2003) Distinguishing benign from malignant bowel obstruction in patients with malignancy: findings at MR imaging. Radiology 228:157–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Catalano C, Dito L, Carbone I, Barbato M, Tomei E, Passariello R (2003) MR imaging of the small bowel using polyethylene glycol solution as an oral contrast agent in adults and children with celiac disease: preliminary observations. Am J Roentgenol 180(1): 191–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofia Gourtsoyianni
    • 1
  • Nicholas C. Gourtsoyiannis
    • 1
  • Nickolas Papanikolaou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete Medical SchoolIraklion CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations