Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been described as the most important development in medical diagnosis since the discovery of the roentgen ray more than 100 years ago. The effectiveness of MRI has been extended to make it applicable in a wide variety of gastrointestinal disorders. The attention of gastroenterologists is currently focusing on pancreaticobiliary and bowel diseases. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has become a competitive alternative to diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a variety of hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. Magnetic resonance enteroscopy has the potential to become the preferable method for evaluating the entire small bowel; virtual colonoscopy, on the other hand, is far from the stage at which it could be promoted as a tool for general screening purposes in suspected colonic diseases. Its drawbacks include problems with standardization, implementation of the techniques in generalized settings, and patient acceptance.
References
1
Wallner B K, Schumacher K A, Weidenmaier W, et al.
Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast enhanced fast sequence.
Radiology.
1991;
181
805-808
2
Soto J A, Barish M A, Yucel E K, et al.
Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Gastroenterology.
1996;
110
589-597
3
Zidi S H, Prat F, Le Guen O, et al.
Use of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: prospective comparison with a reference imaging method.
Gut.
1999;
44
118-122
4
Adamek H E, Albert J, Weitz M, et al.
A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction.
Gut.
1988;
43
680-683
6
Hintze R E, Adler A, Veltzke W, et al.
Clinical significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared with ERCP.
Endoscopy.
1997;
29
182-187
8
Lecesne R, Taourel P, Bret P M, et al.
Acute pancreatitis: interobserver agreement and correlation of CT and MR cholangiopancreatography with outcome.
Radiology.
1999;
211
727-735
9
Sica G T, Braver J, Cooney M J, et al.
Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with pancreatitis.
Radiology.
1999;
210
605-610
10
Sugiyama M, Atomi Y, Hachiya J.
Intraductal papillary tumors of the pancreas: evaluation with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.
Am J Gastroenterol.
1998;
93
156-159
12
Adamek H E, Weitz M, Breer H, et al.
Value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) after unsuccessful ERCP.
Endoscopy.
1997;
29
741-744
14
Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Steiner P, et al.
Preliminary assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for various colonic disorders.
Lancet.
1997;
349
1288-1291
15
Hara A K, Johnson C D, Reed J E, et al.
Detection of colorectal polyps by computed tomographic colography: feasibility of a novel technique.
Gastroenterology.
1996;
110
284-290
16
Fenlon H M, Nunes D P, Schroy P C, et al.
A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.
N Engl J Med.
1999;
341
1496-1503
17
Rex D K, Vining D, Kopecky K K.
An initial experience with screening for colon polyps using spiral CT with and without CT colography.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1999;
50
309-313
18
McFarland E G, Brink J A.
Helical CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy): the challenge that exists between advancing technology and generalizability.
Am J Roentgenol.
1999;
173
549-559
24
Fenlon H M, McAneny D B, Nunes D P, et al.
Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the proximal colon.
Radiology.
1999;
210
423-428
