colonic anastomosis

Journal Title, Volume, Page:

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 101–107, July 2006

Year of Publication:

2006

Link:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.20606/abstract

Authors:

Waleed Ajaj

Medical Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Current Affiliation:

Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

[email protected]

Mathias Goyen

Medical Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Jost Langhorst

Department of Internal Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany

Stefan G. Ruehm

Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA

Guido Gerken

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

Thomas C. Lauenstein

Department of Radiology, Emory Clinic, Atlanta, Georgia, US

Preferred Abstract (Original):

Purpose: To assess colonic anastomoses in patients after surgical treatment by means of MR colonography (MRC) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC).
Materials and Methods: A total of 39 patients who had previously undergone colonic resection and end-to-endanastomosis were included in the study. MRI was based on a dark-lumen approach. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1w) three-dimensional (3D) images were collected following the rectal administration of water for colonic distension. The MRC data were evaluated by two radiologists. The criteria employed to evaluate the anastomoses included bowel wall thickening and increased contrast uptake in this region. Furthermore, all other colonic segments were assessed for the presence of pathologies.
Results: In 23 and 20 patients the anastomosis was rated to be normal by MRC and CC, respectively. In three patients CC revealed a slight inflammation of the anastomosis that was missed by MRI. A moderate stenosis of the anastomosis without inflammation was detected by MRC in five patients, which was confirmed by CC. In the remaining 11 patients a relevant pathology of the anastomosis was diagnosed by both MRC and CC. Recurrent tumor was diagnosed in two patients with a history of colorectal carcinoma. In the other nine patients inflammation of the anastomosis was seen in seven with Crohn’s disease (CD) and two with ulcerative colitis. MRC did not yield any falsepositive findings, resulting in an overall sensitivity/specificity for the assessment of the anastomosis of 84%/100%.
Conclusion: MRC represents a promising alternative to CC for the assessment of colonic anastomoses in patients with previous colonic resection.

An-Najah Staff

MR Colonography For The Assessment of Colonic Anastomoses