Diagnosing bile duct stones

Comparison of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography

J. A. Soto, O. Alvarez, Felipe Munera, S. M. Velez, J. Valencia, N. Ramirez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

114 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. In this investigation we compared the diagnostic performance of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-one patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography of suspected biliary stones were studied with unenhanced helical CT, MR cholangiography, and helical CT performed after oral administration of a cholangiographic contrast agent (iopodic acid). The studies were randomized for interpretation. Two radiologists evaluated the images by consensus and determined the presence and location of stones. We used retrograde cholangiography findings as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the three examinations were calculated and compared using the exact form of the McNemar test. RESULTS. Bile duct stones were revealed with retrograde cholangiography in 26 patients (51%). Sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 44.4-82%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 96% (95% CI, 78-99%) for MR cholangiography. Specificity was 84% (95% CI, 63-95%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 100% (95% CI, 83-100%) for MR cholangiography. The sensitivity of CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography was significantly higher than that of unenhanced helical CT (p < 0.01). Differences in specificity were not significant. CONCLUSION. Our results indicate that oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography are significantly more sensitive than unenhanced helical CT for the detection of bile duct calculi.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1127-1134
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume175
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cholangiography
Spiral Computed Tomography
Bile Ducts
Confidence Intervals
Choledocholithiasis
Calculi
Contrast Media
Oral Administration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Diagnosing bile duct stones : Comparison of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography. / Soto, J. A.; Alvarez, O.; Munera, Felipe; Velez, S. M.; Valencia, J.; Ramirez, N.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 175, No. 4, 01.01.2000, p. 1127-1134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{90548d322d4b47aeae796194f4110896,
title = "Diagnosing bile duct stones: Comparison of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. In this investigation we compared the diagnostic performance of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-one patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography of suspected biliary stones were studied with unenhanced helical CT, MR cholangiography, and helical CT performed after oral administration of a cholangiographic contrast agent (iopodic acid). The studies were randomized for interpretation. Two radiologists evaluated the images by consensus and determined the presence and location of stones. We used retrograde cholangiography findings as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity (with 95{\%} confidence intervals [CIs]) of the three examinations were calculated and compared using the exact form of the McNemar test. RESULTS. Bile duct stones were revealed with retrograde cholangiography in 26 patients (51{\%}). Sensitivity was 65{\%} (95{\%} CI, 44.4-82{\%}) for unenhanced helical CT, 92{\%} (95{\%} CI, 73-99{\%}) for CT cholangiography, and 96{\%} (95{\%} CI, 78-99{\%}) for MR cholangiography. Specificity was 84{\%} (95{\%} CI, 63-95{\%}) for unenhanced helical CT, 92{\%} (95{\%} CI, 73-99{\%}) for CT cholangiography, and 100{\%} (95{\%} CI, 83-100{\%}) for MR cholangiography. The sensitivity of CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography was significantly higher than that of unenhanced helical CT (p < 0.01). Differences in specificity were not significant. CONCLUSION. Our results indicate that oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography are significantly more sensitive than unenhanced helical CT for the detection of bile duct calculi.",
author = "Soto, {J. A.} and O. Alvarez and Felipe Munera and Velez, {S. M.} and J. Valencia and N. Ramirez",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "175",
pages = "1127--1134",
journal = "AJR. American journal of roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnosing bile duct stones

T2 - Comparison of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography

AU - Soto, J. A.

AU - Alvarez, O.

AU - Munera, Felipe

AU - Velez, S. M.

AU - Valencia, J.

AU - Ramirez, N.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. In this investigation we compared the diagnostic performance of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-one patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography of suspected biliary stones were studied with unenhanced helical CT, MR cholangiography, and helical CT performed after oral administration of a cholangiographic contrast agent (iopodic acid). The studies were randomized for interpretation. Two radiologists evaluated the images by consensus and determined the presence and location of stones. We used retrograde cholangiography findings as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the three examinations were calculated and compared using the exact form of the McNemar test. RESULTS. Bile duct stones were revealed with retrograde cholangiography in 26 patients (51%). Sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 44.4-82%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 96% (95% CI, 78-99%) for MR cholangiography. Specificity was 84% (95% CI, 63-95%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 100% (95% CI, 83-100%) for MR cholangiography. The sensitivity of CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography was significantly higher than that of unenhanced helical CT (p < 0.01). Differences in specificity were not significant. CONCLUSION. Our results indicate that oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography are significantly more sensitive than unenhanced helical CT for the detection of bile duct calculi.

AB - OBJECTIVE. In this investigation we compared the diagnostic performance of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography, and MR cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-one patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography of suspected biliary stones were studied with unenhanced helical CT, MR cholangiography, and helical CT performed after oral administration of a cholangiographic contrast agent (iopodic acid). The studies were randomized for interpretation. Two radiologists evaluated the images by consensus and determined the presence and location of stones. We used retrograde cholangiography findings as the standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the three examinations were calculated and compared using the exact form of the McNemar test. RESULTS. Bile duct stones were revealed with retrograde cholangiography in 26 patients (51%). Sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 44.4-82%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 96% (95% CI, 78-99%) for MR cholangiography. Specificity was 84% (95% CI, 63-95%) for unenhanced helical CT, 92% (95% CI, 73-99%) for CT cholangiography, and 100% (95% CI, 83-100%) for MR cholangiography. The sensitivity of CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography was significantly higher than that of unenhanced helical CT (p < 0.01). Differences in specificity were not significant. CONCLUSION. Our results indicate that oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography are significantly more sensitive than unenhanced helical CT for the detection of bile duct calculi.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033806954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033806954&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 175

SP - 1127

EP - 1134

JO - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 4

ER -