Keywords:
Biliary Tract / Gallbladder, Gastrointestinal tract, Abdomen, MR, Ultrasound, Diagnostic procedure, Cholangiography, Obstruction / Occlusion
Authors:
O. Abdulla1, S. J. Golding2; 1Bangor/UK, 2Oxford/UK
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2013/C-0604
Conclusion
In the present study,
US showed a poor sensitivity for diagnosing bile duct stones.
Improvements in technology,
combined with awareness of the difficulty in prospectively making the diagnosis,
are likely contributors for an overall improvement in US sensitivity.
MRCP,
on the other hand,
showed much higher sensitivity than US in the diagnosis of bile duct stones and the successful diagnosis seems to be less investigator dependent than ultrasonography.
Although US is an excellent initial procedure for detecting biliary dilatation,
MRCP is superior to US in visualizing stones in the CBD.
The relatively risk-free features of MRCP offer a safety advantage but warrant careful scrutiny.
Without risk,
the potential for less stringent indications could emerge and eliminate any potential cost savings achieved when MRCP is used in judicious fashion.
MRCP can replace US as an initial screening test upon availability of the technique and reduction of costs.