Biomedical papers, 2010 (vol. 154), issue 2

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2010, 154(2):123-132 | 10.5507/bp.2010.019

SMALL BOWEL IMAGING – STILL A RADIOLOGIC APPROACH?

Ingrid Markovaa,c, Katerina Kluchovab,d, Radek Zborilb,d, Miroslav Mashlanb, Miroslav Hermanc
a Department of Radiology, Faculty Hospital F. D. Roosevelt Banska Bystrica, Slovak Republic
b Centre for Nanomaterial Research, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
c Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University
d Department of Physical Chemistry, Palacky University

Background: In recent years, there has been renewed interest in small bowel imaging using a variety of radiologic or endoscopic techniques. This article gives an overview and comparison of old and new techniques used in small bowel imaging. New imaging methods as computed tomography (CT), CT enteroclysis (CTEc), CT enterography (CTEg), ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), US enteroclysis, US enterography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MR enteroclysis (MREc) and MR enterography (MREg) are compared with the older techniques such as small- bowel follow- through (SBFT), conventional enteroclysis (CE) and endoscopic techniques including push enteroscopy, ezofagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), sonde enteroscopy, ileocolonoscopy, double-balloon enteroscopy, intraoperative enteroscopy and wireless capsule enteroscopy (WCE).

Methods: Systematic scan of Pubmed,Medline, Ovid, Elsevier search engines was used.. Additional information was found through the bibliographical review of relevant articles.

Results: SBFT has only secondary role in small bowel imaging. US is still the method of choice in imaging for pediatric populations. US and CEUS are also accepted as a method of choice especially in inflammatory cases. CE has been replaced by new cross - sectional imaging techniques (CTEc/CTEg or MREc/MREg). CTEc combines the advantages of CT and CE. MREc combines the advantages of MRI and CE. Some authors prefer CTEg or MREg with peroral bowel preparation and they strictly avoid nasojejunal intubation under fluoroscopic control. MREc has better soft tissue contrast, showing it to be more sensitive in detecting mucosal lesions than CTEc in inflammatory diseases. CTEg/MREg are techniques preferred for patients in follow-up of the inflammatory diseases. The radiologic community is not unanimous however about their role in the imaging process. CTEc/MREc as well as CTEg/MREg are superior to endoscopic methods in the investigation of small-bowel tumors. WCE gives unparalleled imaging of the mucosal surface of the small bowel especially in the event of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and inflammatory diseases.

Conclusions: In a comparison of endoscopic and radiologic approaches, radiologic techniques are less invasive for patients, they take less time to investigate and allow imaging the entire small bowel. Some do not involve radiation exposure (US, MR). Endoscopic methods are more expensive, more invasive, need longer examination time and technical special skills but without radiation exposure. The greatest advantage of some endoscopic methods is the possibility of mucosal biopsy in one step with diagnostic examination (EGD, push enteroscopy, intraoperative enteroscopy, ileocolonoscopy).

Keywords: CT enteroclysis, MR enteroclysis, Crohn’s disease, Small bowel neoplasm, Contrast- enhanced ultrasound, Super-Paramagnetic of Iron Oxides (SPIO)

Received: September 3, 2009; Accepted: May 28, 2010; Published: June 1, 2010


References

  1. Fork FT, Aabakken L. Capsule enteroscopy and radiology of the small intestine. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:31033111. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Gourtsoyannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, Prassopoulos P. MR enteroclysis protocol optimization: comparison between 3D FLASH with fat saturation after intravenous gadolinium injection and true FISP sequences. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:908913. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Masselli G, Vecchioli A, Gualdi GF. Crohn disease of the small bowel: MR enteroclysis versus conventional enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 2006; 31:400409. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Makó EK, Mester AR, Tárján Z, Karlinger K,Tóth G. Enteroclysis and spiral CT examination in diagnosis and evaluation of small bowel Crohns disease. Eur J Radiol 2000; 35(3):168175. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Willis JS, Lobis IF, Denstman FJ. Crohn disease:state of the art. Radiology 1997; 202:597610. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Korman U, Kurugoglu S, Ogut G. Conventional enteroclysis with complementary MR enteroclysis:a combination of small bowel imaging. Abdom Imaging 2005; 30:564575. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Wilson SR. Gastrointestinal Tract. In: Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charbonaeu WJ,editors. Diagnostic Ultrasound. St.Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 279326.
  8. Válek VA, Hep A, Všetíček J. Vyšetření tenkého střeva enteroklýza, CT a ultrazvuk diferenciální diagnostika patologických stavú. Čes Radiol 2000; 54:5970.
  9. Klibanov AL. Ligand-carrying gas-filled microbubbles: ultrasound contrast agents for targeted molecular imaging. Bioconjug Chem 2005; 16:917. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Contrast-enhanced_ultrasound Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Válek V, Kysela P, Vavríková M. Crohn's disease at the small bowel imaging by the ultrasound-enteroclysis. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62(2):1539. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Bender GN, Timmons JH, Wiliard WC, Carter J. Computed tomographic enteroclysis: one methodology. Invest Radiol 1996; 31:4349. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Kohli MD, Maglinte DD. CT enteroclysis in small bowel Crohns disease. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69:398403. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Romano S, De Lutio E, Rollandi GA, Romano L, Grassi R, Maglinte DD. Multidetector computed tomography enteroclysis (MDCT-E) with neutral enteral and IV contrast enhancement in tumor detection. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:11781183. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Huprich JE, Fletcher JG. CT enterography: Principles, techniques and utility in Crohns disease. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69:393397. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Sandborn WJ. Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: non invasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy-feasibility study. Radiology 2003; 229:27528. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Horton KM, Eng J, Fishman EK. Normal enhancement of the small bowel: evaluation with spiral CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000; 24:6771. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Sears DM, vots-Avotins A, Culp K, Gavin MW. Frequency and clinical outcome of capsule retention during capsule endoscopy for GI bleeding of obscure origin. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60:822827. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Maglinte DD, Bender GN, Heitkamp DE, Lappas JC, Kelvin FM. Multidetector-row helical CT enteroclysis. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:249262. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B,Westerman BL, Morgan HT, et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004; 233:649657. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Voderholzer WA, Beinhoelzl J, Rogalla P, Murrer S, Schachschal G, Lochs H et al. Small bowel involvement in Crohn's disease: a prospective comparison of wireless capsule endoscopy and computed tomography enteroclysis. Gut 2005; 54:369373. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Solem CA, Loftus EV Jr, Tremaine WJ, Harmsen WS, Zinsmeister AR, Sandborn WJ. Correlation of C-reactive protein with clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and radiographic activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005; 11:707712. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Reittner P, Goritschnig T, Petritsch W, Doerfler O, Priedler KW, Hinterleitner T, et al. Multiplanar spiral CT enterography in patients with Crohn's disease using a negative oral contrast material: initial results of a noninvasive imaging approach. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:22532257. Go to original source...
  23. Booya F, Fletcher JG, Huprich JE, Barlow JM, Johnson CD, Fidler JL, et al. Active Crohn disease: CT Findings and Interobserver Agreement for Enteric Phase CT enterography. Radiology 2006; 241(3):78795. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, Johnson D, Fidler JL, Barlow JM, et al. Crohn disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast- enhanced CT enterography - correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 2006; 238:505516. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Sempere GA, Martinez Sanjuan V, Medina Chulia E, Benages A,Tome Toyosato A, Canelles P, et al. MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:18291835. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Winter TC, Ager JD, Nghiem HV, Hill RS, Harrison SD, Freeny PC. Upper gastrointestinal tract and abdomen: water as an orally administered contrast agent for helical CT. Radiology 1996; 201:365370. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Horton KM, Fishman EK. Helical CT of the stomach: evaluation with water as an oral contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:13731376. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Heigh RI, Sharma VK, Silva AC, DePetris G, et al. Crohn disease of the small bowel: preliminary comparison among CT enterography, capsule endoscopy, small-bowel followthrough, and ileoscopy. Radiology 2006; 238:128134. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Martin DR, Lauenstein TC, Ascher SM, Semelka RC. Gastrointestinal tract.In: Semelka RC,editor. Abdominal-Pelvic MRI. Hoboken, New Jersey: Willey- Liss; 2006. p.706742.
  30. Boudiaf M, Jaff A, Soyer P, Bouhnik Y, Hamzi L, Rymer R. Smallbowel diseases: prospective evaluation of multi-detector row helical CT enteroclysis in 107 consecutive patients. Radiology 2004; 233:338344. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  31. Maglinte DD, Gage SN, Harmon BH, Kelvin FM, Hage JP, Chua GT, et al. Obstruction of the small intestine: accuracy and role of CT in diagnosis. Radiology 1993; 188:6164. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  32. Walsh D, Bender GN, Timmons JH. Comparison of computed tomography-enteroclysis and traditional computed tomography in the setting of suspected partial small bowel obstruction. Emerg Radiol 1998; 5:2937. Go to original source...
  33. Fukuya T, Hawes DR, Lu CC, Chang PJ, Barloon TJ. CT diagnosis of small-bowel obstruction: efficacy in 60 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:765769. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  34. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P. MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 2002; 12(11):26512658.
  35. Kluchova K, Zboril R, Tucek J, Pecova M, Zajoncova L, Safarik I, et al. Superparamagnetic maghemite nanoparticles from solid-state synthesis Their functionalization towards peroral MRI contrast agent and magnetic carrier for trypsin immobilization. Biomaterials 2009; 30:28552863. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  36. Maglinte DD, Siegelman ES, Kelvin FM. MR enteroclysis: the future of small-bowel imaging. Radiology 2000; 215(3):639641. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  37. Paolantonio P, Ferrari R, Vecchietti F, Cucchiara S, Laghi A. Current status of MR imaging in the evaluation of IBD in a pediatric population of patients. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69: 418424. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  38. Laghi A, Carbone I, Catalano C, Iannaccone R, Paolantonio P, Baeli I, et al. Polyethylenglycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging of the small bowel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177:13331334. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  39. Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Iafrate F, Borelli O,Dito L, Tomei E, et al. MR of the small bowel with a biphasic oral contrast agent (polyethylene glycol): technical aspects and findings in patients affected by Crohns disease. Radiol Med (Torino) 2003; 106(12):1827.
  40. Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, Herborn ChU, Ruhm SG, Debatin JF. Optimization of Oral Contrast Agents for MR Imaging of the Small Bowel. Radiology 2003; 228:279283. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  41. Schreyer AG, Geissler A, Albrich H, Schölmerich J, Feuerbach S, Rogler G, et al. Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast in patients with suspected or proven Crohns disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2(6):4917. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  42. Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Gualdi G. Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohns disease. EurRadiol 2008; 18:438447.
  43. Wang Y-XJ, Hussain SH, Krestin GP. Superparamagnetic iron oxid contrast agents: physicochemical characteristic and applications in MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:231931. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  44. Narin B, Aja W, Göhde S, Langhorst J, Akhöz H, Gerken G, et al. Combined small and large bowel MR imaging in patients with Crohns disease: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:153542. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  45. Debatin JF, Patak MA. MRI of the small and large bowel. Eur Radiol 1999; 9:152334. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  46. Haldeman Heusler RC, Wight E, Marincek B.Oral superparamagnetic contrast agent (ferumoxsil): tolerance and efficacy in MR imaging of gynecologic disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5:38591. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  47. Johnson WK, Stoupis C, Torres GM, Rosenberg EB, Ross RR. Superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) as an oral contrast agent in gastrointestinal (GI) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Comparison with state -of -the-art- computed tomography (CT). Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 14:439. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  48. Laghi A: MRI with or without enteroclysis. In: Postgraduate Educational programme ECR 2009. Book af Abstracts. Eur Radiol Suppl 1/March 2009; 19:28.
  49. Ferda J, Kreuzberg B, Mirka H, Novak M, Bosman R, Kucera R. Polytrauma z pohledu diagnosticke a intervencni radiologie.Ces Radiol Suppl 1 2008; 62:6469.
  50. Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Vahedi K, Gaudin JL,Villarejo J, Florent C, et al. Clinical impact of capsule endoscopy: 1-year follow-up study. Endoscopy 2005; 37:318323. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  51. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Sharma VK, Fleisher DE. Small bowel: preliminary comparison of capsule endoscopy with barium study and CT. Radiology 2004; 230:260265. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  52. Lee SD, Cohen RD. Endoscopy of the small bowel in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002; 12:485493. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  53. Maglinte DD.Capsule imaging and the role of radiology in the investigation of diseases of the small bowel. Radiology 2005; 236:763767. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...