Clin Endosc.  2017 Sep;50(5):486-490. 10.5946/ce.2016.159.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience

Affiliations
  • 1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia/Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. hdmakmun@yahoo.com
  • 2Continuing Medical Education-Continuing Professional Development Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia/Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS
Biliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
METHODS
This retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard.
RESULTS
The male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
EUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.

Keyword

Endosonography; Cholangiopancreatography, magnetic resonance; Cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde; Choledocholithiasis

MeSH Terms

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde*
Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance*
Choledocholithiasis*
Endosonography*
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Male
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity*

Cited by  1 articles

Optimal Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis: Does This Patient Really Have Choledocholithiasis?
Tae Yoon Lee
Clin Endosc. 2017;50(5):415-416.    doi: 10.5946/ce.2017.146.


Reference

1. Smith ZL, Meiselman MS. Calculous biliary disease. In : Bope ET, Kellerman RD, editors. Conn’s current therapy. Philadelphia (PA): Elsevier Saunders;2013. p. 500–503.
2. Freitas ML, Bell RL, Duffy AJ. Choledocholithiasis: evolving standards for diagnosis and management. World J Gastroenterol. 2006; 12:3162–3167.
Article
3. Vázquez-Sequeiros E, González-Panizo Tamargo F, Boixeda-Miquel D, Milicua JM. Diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate suspicion of choledocholithiasis and absence of findings in magnetic resonance cholangiography. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2011; 103:464–471.
Article
4. Makmun D, Sajuthi D, Daldiyono D, Winarto A, Sulistiawati E. Effect of intravenous polyunsaturated fatty acids administration on gastric mucosal integrity in pig-tailed macaques with obstructive jaundice. The Indonesian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Digestive Endoscopy. 2011; 12:8–14.
5. Al-Jiffry BO, Elfateh A, Chundrigar T, et al. Non-invasive assessment of choledocholithiasis in patients with gallstones and abnormal liver function. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19:5877–5882.
Article
6. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Anderson MA, Fisher L, et al. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75:467–473.
Article
7. Makmun D, Abdullah M, Syam AF, Fauzi A. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and its related factors: a prospective study in Cipto Mangunkusumo national general hospital. Journal of Digestive Endoscopy. 2015; 6:163–168.
Article
8. Rana SS, Bhasin DK, Sharma V, Rao C, Gupta R, Singh K. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of unexplained common bile duct dilatation on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Ann Gastroenterol. 2013; 26:66–70.
9. Yusuf TE, Bhutani MS. Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in diseases of the extrahepatic biliary system. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004; 19:243–250.
Article
10. Prachayakul V, Aswakul P, Bhunthumkomol P, Deesomsak M. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate or high likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study from one university-based endoscopy center. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014; 14:165.
Article
11. Alhayaf N, Lalor E, Bain V, McKaigney J, Sandha GS. The clinical impact and cost implication of endoscopic ultrasound on use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008; 22:138–142.
12. Eshghi F, Abdi R. Routine magnetic resonance cholangiography compared to intra-operative cholangiography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2008; 7:525–528.
Article
13. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 54:271–275.
Article
14. Tozzi di Angelo I, Prochazka V, Holinka M, Zapletalova J. Endosonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011; 155:339–346.
Article
15. Palmucci S, Mauro LA, La Scola S, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary pathology. Radiol Med. 2010; 115:732–746.
Article
16. Aubé C, Delorme B, Yzet T, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: a prospective, comparative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184:55–62.
Article
17. McMahon CJ. The relative roles of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis of common bile duct calculi: a critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging. 2008; 33:6–9.
Article
18. Sotoudehmanesh R, Khatibian M, Ghadir MR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with inconclusive magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of biliopancreatic abnormalities. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2011; 30:156–160.
Article
19. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 64:248–254.
Article
20. Giljaca V, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (2):CD011549.
Article
21. Benjaminov F, Stein A, Lichtman G, Pomeranz I, Konikoff FM. Consecutive versus separate sessions of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for symptomatic choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27:2117–2121.
Article
22. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71:1–9.
Article
Full Text Links
  • CE
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr