Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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

Objective

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).

Results

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).

Conclusion

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robertson MA (1996) Pancreatitis. In: Walker WA (ed) Pediatric gastrointestinal disease, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 1451–1452

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benifla M, Weizman Z (2003) Acute pancreatitis in childhood: analysis of literature data. J Clin Gastroenterol 37:169–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Francois E, Deviere J (2002) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 34:882–887

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barish M, Soto J, Ferrucci J (1997) Magnetic resonance pancreatography. Endoscopy 29:487–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Punwani S, Gillams AR, Lees WR (2003) Non-invasive quantification of pancreatic exocrine function using secretin-stimulated MRCP. Eur Radiol 13:273–276

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Akisik M, Sandrasegaran K, Aisen A et al (2006) Dynamic secretin-enhanced MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiographics 26:665–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guibaud L, Lachaud A, Touraine R et al (1998) MR cholangiography in neonates and infants: feasibility and preliminary applications. AJR 170:27–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Arcement CM, Meza MP, Arumanla S et al (2001) MRCP in evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease in children. Pediatr Radiol 31:92–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 42:363–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimizu T, Suzuki R, Yamashiro Y et al (2001) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in assessing the cause of acute pancreatitis in children. Pancreas 22:196–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miyazaki T, Yamashita Y, Tang Y et al (1998) Single-shot MR cholangiopancreatography of neonates, infants, and young children. AJR 170:33–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Egelhoff JC, Ball WS, Koch BL et al (1997) Safety and efficacy of sedation in children using a structured sedation program. AJR 168:1259–1262

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ueno E, Takada Y, Yoshida I et al (1998) Pancreatic diseases: evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas 16:418–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 19:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  15. AMAG Pharmaceuticals (2007) GastroMARK package insert. http://www.amagpharma.com/documents/products/pdfs/gastromark_insert.pdf. Cited 27 Sept 2007

  16. Manfredi R, Costamagna G, Brizi M et al (2000) Severe chronic pancreatitis versus suspected pancreatic disease: dynamic MR cholangiopancreatography after secretin stimulation. Radiology 214:849–855

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guyton AC (1991) Textbook of medical physiology, 8th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  18. eMedicine (2007) Pancreas divisum. http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic520.htm. Cited 27 Sept 2007

  19. Gillams AR, Kurzawinski T, Lees WR (2006) Diagnosis of duct disruption and assessment of pancreatic leak with dynamic secretin-stimulated MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR 186:499–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shanmugam V, Beattie GC, Yule SR et al (2005) Is magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging? Br J Radiol 78:888–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Matos C, Cappeliez O, Winant C et al (2002) MR imaging of the pancreas: a pictorial tour. Radiographics 22:e2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Soto JA, Lucy BC, Stuhlfaut JW (2005) Pancreas divisum: depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 235:503–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Lisa Delaney, Kimberly E. Applegate, Boaz Karmazyn, M. Fatih Akisik & S. Gregory Jennings

  2. Department of Radiology, Riley Hospital for Children, 702 Barnhill Drive, Indianapolis, IN, 46202-5200, USA

    Kimberly E. Applegate

Authors
  1. Lisa Delaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly E. Applegate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Boaz Karmazyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Fatih Akisik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Gregory Jennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly E. Applegate.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delaney, L., Applegate, K.E., Karmazyn, B. et al. MR cholangiopancreatography in children: feasibility, safety, and initial experience. Pediatr Radiol 38, 64–75 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-007-0644-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-007-0644-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation