Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anastomotic recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection: comparison of MR enteroclysis with endoscopy

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of MR enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileocolic resection and to establish an MR scoring sytem. MR enteroclysis and endoscopy were performed in 30 patients with suspected Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileocolic resection. Findings were evaluated by three radiologists, using an MR score based on image quality, contrast enhancement, and mural and extramural bowel-wall changes: MR0 (no abnormal features), MR1 (minimal mucosal changes), MR2 (diffuse aphtoid ileitis, moderate recurrence), and MR3 (severe recurrence with trans- and extramural changes). The endoscopic Rutgeerts score defines changes at the ileum on a scale from I0 to I4. In 3/30 (10%) patients, evaluation was not possible. The mean overall image quality was rated as 1.7 (kappa 0.78). Comparing MR and Rutgeerts score, the mean observer agreement for the total score rating was 77.8% (kappa 0.67). When comparing only scores below or above MR2—the threshold indicative of the necessity of medical treatment—there was a total agreement of 95.1% (kappa 0.84). MR enteroclysis allows assessment of Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileocolic resection. The MR score is reproducible and shows high agreement with the approved endoscopic Rutgeerts score.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Przemioslo RT, Ciclitira PJ (1995) Pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease. Q J Med 88:525–527

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Daperno M, D’Haens G, Van Assche G et al (2004) Development and validation of a new, simplified endoscopic activity score for Crohn’s disease: the SES-CD. Gastrointest Endosc 60:505–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker JM (1999) Surgical therapy for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 28:371–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Haens GR, Geboes K, Peeters M, Baert F, Penninck F, Rutgeerts P (1998) Early lesions of recurrent Crohn’s disease caused by infusion of intestinal excluded ileum. Gastroenterology 114:262–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rutgeerts P, Geboes K, Vantrappen G, Beyls J, Kerremans R, Hiele M (1990) Predictability of the postoperative course of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 99:956–963

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ollendorf DA, Massarotti E, Birbara C, Burgess SM (2005) Frequency, predictors, and economic impact of upward dose adjustment of infliximab in managed care patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Manag Care Pharm 11:383–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Korzenik JR, Dieckgraefe BK, Valentine JF, Hausman DF, Gilbert MJ (2005) Sargramostim in Crohn’s disease study group. Sargramostim for active Crohn’s disease. N Engl J Med 352:2193–2201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rutgeerts P, Van Assche G, Vermeire S et al (2005) Ornidazole for prophylaxis of postoperative Crohn’s disease recurrence: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology 128:856–861

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Prassopoulos P, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Rousomoustakaki M, Maris T, Gourtsoyiannis N (2001) MR enteroclysis imaging of Crohn disease. Radiographics 21:161–172

    Google Scholar 

  10. Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E et al (2006) Assessment of Crohn’s disease in the small bowel: prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis with conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16:2817–2827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 12:2651–2658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Masselli G, Brizi GM, Parrella A, Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Marano P (2004) Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 29:326–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A et al (2006) MR imaging in patients with Crohn’s disease: value of T2- versus T1-weighted gadolinium- enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral superparamagnetic contrast agent. Radiology 238:517–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyers MA, McGuire PV (1995) Spiral CT demonstration of hypervascularity in Crohn’s disease: “vascular jejunization of the ileum” of the “comb sign”. Abdom Imaging 20:327–332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2004) Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel with MR and conventional enteroclysis: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 14:1017–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiorean MV, Sandrasegaran K, Saxena R et al (2007) Correlation of CT enteroclysis with surgical pathology in Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterology 102:2541–2550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Maselli G, Vecchioli A, Gualdi GF (2006) Crohn disease of the small bowel: MR enteroclysis versus conventional enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 31:400–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiarda BM, Kuipers EJ, Heitbrink MA, van Oijen SA, Stoker J (2006) MR enteroclysis of inflammatory small-bowel diseases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:522–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletscher JG et al (2006) CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 26:641–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sailer J, Peloschek P, Schober E et al (2005) Diagnostic value of CT enteroclysis compared with conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:1575–1581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Maglinte DD, Siegelsmann EF, Kelvin FM (2000) MR enteroclysis: the future of small-bowel imaging? Radiology 215:639–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Maccioni F, Viscido A, Broglia L et al (2000) Evaluation of Crohn disease activity with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 25:219–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pauls S, Gabelmann A, Schmidt SA, Rieber A et al (2006) Evaluating bowel wall vascularity in Crohn’s disease: a comparison of dynamic MRI and wideband harmonic imaging contrast-enhanced low MI ultrasound. Eur Radiol 16:2410–2417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. May A, Nachbar L, Schneider M, Ell C (2005) Double−balloon enteroscopy (push−and−pull enteroscopy) of the small bowel: feasibility, diagnostic and therapeutic yield in patients with suspected small bowel disease. Gastrointest Endoscopy 62:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Laghi A, Carbone I, Catalano C et al (2001) Polyethylene glycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging of the small bowel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1333–1334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Patak MA, Froehlich JM, Weymann C, Ritz MA, Zollikofer CL, Wentz KU (2001) Non invasive distension of the small bowel for magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 258:987–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Colombel JF, Solem CA, Sandborn WJ et al (2006) Quantitative measurement and visual assessment of ileal Crohn’s disease activity by computed tomography enterography: correlation with endoscopic severity an C reactive protein. Gut 55:1561–1567

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rieber A, Nüssle K, Reinshagen M, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A (2002) MRI of the abdomen with positive oral contrast agents for the diagnosis of inflammatory small bowel disease. Abdom Imaging 27:395–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18–20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria

    Johannes Sailer, Philipp Peloschek & Wolfgang Schima

  2. Department of Internal Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Walter Reinisch & Harald Vogelsang

  3. Diagnosezentrum Favoriten, Vienna, Austria

    Karl Turetschek

Authors
  1. Johannes Sailer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philipp Peloschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter Reinisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harald Vogelsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karl Turetschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wolfgang Schima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Sailer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sailer, J., Peloschek, P., Reinisch, W. et al. Anastomotic recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection: comparison of MR enteroclysis with endoscopy. Eur Radiol 18, 2512–2521 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1034-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1034-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation