Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Radiol. Aug 28, 2013; 5(8): 304-312
Published online Aug 28, 2013. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i8.304
Published online Aug 28, 2013. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i8.304
Table 2 Contrasts, relative disadvantages, and contraindications for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
MRCP | ERCP |
Highlight any structure with static fluid | Requires opacification with injected contrast media |
Noninvasive so safe esp. in children and pregnant patients | Invasive |
Lower cost, faster | 20% more expensive than MRCP |
No sedation except in few patients | Sedation required |
Delineate structures proximal to obstruction. | May fail in patients because of possible tight stricture |
No therapeutic intervention | Therapeutic intervention possible |
Doesnot use iodine-based com pounds | Requires iodine-based compound usage |
Disadvantages | |
Duct images obscured by other fluid structures | Risk of pancreatitis |
(renal cysts, ascites, pseudocyst) | Intraluminal bleeding |
Image artifacts from stents, clips, etc. | Duodenal perforation |
Bile leaks | |
Stent migration | |
Contraindications | |
Claustrophobic patient | Patient with previous biliary or gastric surgery |
Patients with ferromagnetic implants | Patients with high risk profile for general anesthesia |
- Citation: Sacher VY, Davis JS, Sleeman D, Casillas J. Role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing choledochal cysts: Case series and review. World J Radiol 2013; 5(8): 304-312
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v5/i8/304.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v5.i8.304