Comparison Between 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Enterography for the Assessment of Disease Activity and Complications in Ileo-Colonic Crohn’s Disease

Fiorino, Gionata; Bonifacio, Cristiana; Padrenostro, Mauro; Sposta, Federica Mrakic; Spinelli, Antonino; Malesci, Alberto; Balzarini, Luca; Peyrin–Biroulet, Laurent; Danese, Silvio

doi:10.1007/s10620-013-2781-z

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hinsichtlich der Wahl der Hardware hat die Verwendung von 3-Tesla-Gerä-ten bei vermeintlich höherer Sensitivität und diagnostischer Aussagekraft derzeit noch keinen eindeutigen Vorteil gegenüber den weitverbreiteten 1,5-TeslaMagneten gezeigt [10] …”

Section: Voraussetzungenunclassified

Moderne MRT des Dünndarms

Scharitzer

Ba‐Ssalamah

2015

Radiologe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Especially in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, MR enterography and MR enteroclysis should be the methods of choice for the evaluation of small bowel pathologies because of radiation issues and the great diagnostic value they provide. A variety of MR sequences has enabled not only the detection but also the characterization of pathological changes of the small intestine, which are vital for further treatment of these patients.

show abstract

Section: Voraussetzungenunclassified

Moderne MRT des Dünndarms

Scharitzer

Ba‐Ssalamah

2015

Radiologe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus far, higher field strengths have not been found to be superior in detecting polyps when used in MR colonography [11,12] and have exhibited only minor advantages in diagnosing mucosal ulcerations in Crohn's patients [13]. Therefore, 1.5-Tesla scanners, which are the most commonly available in clinical settings, continue to be the standard for imaging.…”

Section: Examination Prerequisites Protocol and Sequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bowel: Today and Tomorrow

Kinner

Hahnemann

Forsting

et al. 2015

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging of the small bowel has been feasible for more than 15 years. This review is meant to give an overview of typical techniques, sequences and indications. Furthermore, newly evaluated promising techniques are presented, which have an impact on the advance of MR imaging of the small and large bowel. Key Points: ??T2-weighted sequences both with and without fat saturation and T1-weighted fat saturated sequences prior to and following intravenous injection of a gadolinium-based contrast medium contitute the basics for bowel MR imaging. ??Newer MR applications, such as diffusion-weighted imaging or contrast-enhaced dynamic sequences supply addtional information; they should thus be integrated in a regular sequence protocol f?r bowel MRI. ??Additional new modalities like motility imaging and PET/MRI have to be evaluated in future studies. Citation Format: ??Kinner S, Hahnemann ML, Forsting M et?al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bowel: Today and Tomorrow. Fortschr R?ntgenstr 2015; 187: 160???167

show abstract

“…45 Although signs such as mural "cobbelstoning" (linear and transverse ulcerations of the mucosal surface) have been described, 14 evaluation of mucosal disease, especially at its early stages, should be correlated to findings of endoscopy or small bowel follow through. 10 MR enteroclysis, which can produce more uniform small bowel distention and provide better detail of the mucosal surface, is rarely performed at our institution because of significant discomfort and added radiation associated with fluoroscopically guided nasojejunal intubation.…”

Section: Limitations Of Mrementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The higher magnetic strength offers lower scan times, higher signal-to-noise ratio and better depiction of mucosal ulcers without sacrificing sensitivity. 14 Although prone positioning may serve to "spot compress" bowel loops, no significant difference in lesion detection was found when compared with supine positioning, which is generally better tolerated. 15 When the patient is first placed on the scanner 1 mg of glucagon (Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Austin, Texas) is injected intramuscularly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%