HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME Test (opens in a new window) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Irie, H. Articles by Masuda, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Irie, H. Articles by Masuda, K. Related Collections Magnetic Resonance Imaging Gastrointestinal Radiology

Pitfalls in MR Cholangiopancreatographic Interpretation¹

¹ From the Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan. Recipient of a Magna Cum Laude award for a scientific exhibit at the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received March 27, 2000; revision requested May 5 and received May 22; accepted May 26. Address correspondence to H.I. (e-mail: hiirie@dr.hosp.kyushu-u.ac.jp).

Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is widely used in the evaluation of pancreatobiliary disorders. However, numerous related pitfalls may simulate or mask pancreatobiliary disease. Maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reconstructed images completely obscure small filling defects and may demonstrate respiratory motion artifacts. T2 weighting may vary with different MR imaging sequences and influence MRCP findings. Incomplete imaging may create confusion regarding ductal anatomy or disease. Furthermore, MRCP yields only static images and thus may fail to depict various anomalies. Limited spatial resolution makes differentiation between benign and malignant strictures with MRCP alone extremely difficult. Susceptibility artifacts may be caused by metallic foreign bodies or gastric-duodenal gas. Fluid accumulation may produce a pseudolesion or pseudostricture, although changing the imaging angle or section thickness may be helpful. Pneumobilia may be misinterpreted as bile duct stones, and true stones may be overlooked. Pulsatile vascular compression can cause pseudo-obstruction of the bile duct. Use of both source and MIP reconstructed images obtained from different angles can help avoid cystic duct–related pitfalls. Repeat MRCP or conventional MR imaging can help avoid pitfalls related to the periampullary region. Segmental collapse of the normal main pancreatic duct may be misinterpreted as stenosis, but administration of secretin is helpful. An awareness of these pitfalls and possible solutions is crucial for avoiding misinterpretation of MRCP images.

Index Terms: Bile ducts, MR, 76.1214 • Magnetic resonance (MR), maximum intensity projection, 76.1214, 774.1214 • Pancreatic ducts, MR, 774.1214

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Aube, B. Delorme, T. Yzet, P. Burtin, J. Lebigot, P. Pessaux, C. Gondry-Jouet, J. Boyer, and C. Caron MR Cholangiopancreatography Versus Endoscopic Sonography in Suspected Common Bile Duct Lithiasis: A Prospective, Comparative Study Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2005; 184(1): 55 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D. Eyvazzadeh, I. Pedrosa, N. M. Rofsky, B. Siewert, N. Farrar, J. Abbott, and D. Levine MRI of Right-Sided Abdominal Pain in Pregnancy Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2004; 183(4): 907 - 914. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Razzaq, MBchB, MRCP, FRCR and S A Sukumar Imaging of the jaundiced adult Imaging, September 1, 2004; 16(4): 287 - 300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Carlos, H. K. Hussain, J. H. Song, and I. R. Francis Gadolinium-Ethoxybenzyl-Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetic Acid as an Intrabiliary Contrast Agent: Preliminary Assessment Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 87 - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]