Download PDF
Rofo 2015; 187(03): 160-167
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1385453
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bowel: Today and Tomorrow

Magnetresonanztomografie des Darms: Altbewährtes und Innovatives
S. Kinner
  Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany
,
M. L. Hahnemann
  Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany
,
M. Forsting
  Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany
,
T. C. Lauenstein
  Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 March 2014

11 September 2014

Publication Date:
19 February 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging of the small bowel has been feasible for more than 15 years. This review is meant to give an overview of typical techniques, sequences and indications. Furthermore, newly evaluated promising techniques are presented, which have an impact on the advance of MR imaging of the small and large bowel.

Key Points:

• T2-weighted sequences both with and without fat saturation and T1-weighted fat saturated sequences prior to and following intravenous injection of a gadolinium-based contrast medium contitute the basics for bowel MR imaging.

• Newer MR applications, such as diffusion-weighted imaging or contrast-enhaced dynamic sequences supply addtional information; they should thus be integrated in a regular sequence protocol für bowel MRI.

• Additional new modalities like motility imaging and PET/MRI have to be evaluated in future studies.

Citation Format:

• Kinner S, Hahnemann ML, Forsting M et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bowel: Today and Tomorrow. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 160 – 167

Zusammenfassung

Die Möglichkeit zur Darstellung des Darmtrakts mittels Magnetresonanztomografie besteht bereits seit mehr als 15 Jahren. Dieser Übersichtsartikel soll einen Überblick über die typischen Techniken, Sequenzen und Indikationen geben. Zudem werden in den letzten Jahren neu evaluierte vielversprechende Techniken dargestellt, die einen weiteren Fortschritt in der MRT-Bildgebung des Dünn- und Dickdarms bieten.

Key words

small bowel - MR-imaging - technical aspects - motility - imaging sequences

Deutscher Artikel/German Article

 

  • References

  • 1 Luboldt W, Debatin JF. Virtual endoscopic colonography based on 3D MRI. Abdom Imaging 1998; 23: 568-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Luboldt W, Steiner P, Bauerfeind P et al. Detection of mass lesions with MR colonography: preliminary report. Radiology 1998; 207: 59-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Platzer IA, Neubauer H, Beer M. Mittels Hydro-Sonografie und Hydro-MRT juvenilen Kolonpolypen auf die Spur kommen. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 183: 744-745
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van der Paardt MP, Stoker J. Magnetic Resonance Colonography for Screening and Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America 2014; 22: 67-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lauenstein TC, Rühm SG, Debatin JF. Aktuelle Standards der MR-Kolonographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 334-341
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Graser A, Melzer A, Lindner E et al. Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 743-750 e742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al. Incomplete Conventional Colonoscopy: Magnetic Resonance Colonography in the Evaluation of the Proximal Colon. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 816-820
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kovanlikaya A, Watson E, Hayward J et al. Magnetic resonance enterography and wireless capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Clinical imaging 2013; 37: 77-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Anupindi SA, Terreblanche O, Courtier J. Magnetic Resonance Enterography: Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Beyond. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America 2013; 21: 731-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schleder S, Pawlik M, Wiggermann P et al. Interobserver Agreement in MR Enterography for Diagnostic Assessment in Patients with Crohn's Disease. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 992-997
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wessling J, Fischbach R, Borchert A et al. Detection of colorectal polyps: comparison of multi-detector row CT and MR colonography in a colon phantom. Radiology 2006; 241: 125-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Röttgen R, Herzog H, Bogen P et al. MR colonoscopy at 3.0 T: comparison with 1.5 T in vivo and a colon model. Clinical imaging 2006; 30: 248-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fiorino G, Bonifacio C, Padrenostro M et al. Comparison Between 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Enterography for the Assessment of Disease Activity and Complications in Ileo-Colonic Crohn’s Disease. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 3246-3255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Borthne A, Abdelnoor M, Storaas T et al. Osmolarity: a decisive parameter of bowel agents in intestinal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1331-1336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ajaj W, Goehde S, Schneemann H et al. Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kinner S, Kuehle C, Herbig S et al. MRI of the small bowel: can sufficient bowel distension be achieved with small volumes of oral contrast?. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 2542-2548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Iafrate F et al. Oral Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Bowel. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2002; 13: 389-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McKenna DA, Roche CJ, Murphy JMP et al. Polyethylene glycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MRI of the small bowel in a patient population. Clinical radiology 2006; 61: 966-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E et al. Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 438-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Negaard A, Paulsen V, Sandvik L et al. A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 2294-2301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schreyer AG, Geissler A, Albrich H et al. Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast in patients with suspected or proven Crohn’s disease. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2: 491-497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Arrivé L, El Mouhadi S. MR Enterography versus MR Enteroclysis. Radiology 2013; 266: 688-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM et al. Dark lumen MR-Colonography: initial experience. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2001; 173: 785-789
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Friedrich C, Fajfar A, Pawlik M et al. Magnetic resonance enterography with and without biphasic contrast agent enema compared to conventional ileocolonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2012; 18: 1842-1848 DOI: 1810.1002/ibd.22843.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Santillan CS. MR Imaging Techniques of the Bowel. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America 2014; 22: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Froehlich J, Daenzer M, Weymarn C et al. Aperistaltic effect of hyoscine N-butylbromide versus glucagon on the small bowel assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1387-1393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gutzeit A, Binkert C, Koh D-M et al. Evaluation of the anti-peristaltic effect of glucagon and hyoscine on the small bowel: comparison of intravenous and intramuscular drug administration. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1186-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schleder S, Dendl LM, Pawlik M et al. Sequenz-Evaluation für die MR-Enterografie für Patienten mit Morbus Crohn. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 440-445
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ajaj W, Rühm SG, Papanikolaou N et al. Dark Lumen MR Colonography: Can High Spatial Resolution VIBE Imaging Improve the Detection of Colorectal Masses?. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2006; 178: 1073-1078
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Minematsu K, Li L, Fisher M et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: rapid and quantitative detection of focal brain ischemia. Neurology 1992; 42: 235-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hartmann M, Heiland S, Sartor K. Funktionelle MR-Verfahren in der Diagnostik intraaxialer Hirntumoren: Perfusions- und Diffusions-Bildgebung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2002; 174: 955-964
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bohlscheid A, Nuss D, Lieser S et al. Tumorsuche mittels kernspintomografischer Diffusionsbildgebung. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2008; 180: 302-309
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wilhelm T, Stieltjes B, Schlemmer HP. Whole-Body-MR-Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Oncology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 950-958
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Buisson A, Joubert A, Montoriol PF et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting and assessing ileal inflammation in Crohn's disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2013; 37: 537-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Oto A, Kayhan A, Williams JTB et al. Active Crohn’s Disease in the small bowel: Evaluation by diffusion weighted imaging and quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2011; 33: 615-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Oussalah A, Laurent V, Bruot O et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance without bowel preparation for detecting colonic inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2010; 59: 1056-1065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kinner S, Blex S, Maderwald S et al. Addition of diffusion-weighted imaging can improve diagnostic confidence in bowel MRI. Clinical radiology 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kilickesmez O, Atilla S, Soylu A et al. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Rectosigmoid Colon: Preliminary Findings. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2009; 33: 863-866 DOI: 810.1097/RCT.1090b1013e31819a31860f31813.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Schmid-Tannwald C, Agrawal G, Dahi F et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI: Role in detecting abdominopelvic internal fistulas and sinus tracts. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012; 35: 125-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Neubauer H, Pabst T, Dick A et al. Small-bowel MRI in children and young adults with Crohn disease: retrospective head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI. Pediatr Radiol 2013; 43: 103-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kunze WA, Furness JB. The enteric nervous system and regulation of intestinal motility. Annual review of physiology 1999; 61: 117-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Menys A, Taylor SA, Emmanuel A et al. Global Small Bowel Motility: Assessment with Dynamic MR Imaging. Radiology 2013; 269: 443-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bickelhaupt S, Froehlich JM, Cattin R et al. Software-assisted quantitative analysis of small bowel motility compared to manual measurements. Clinical radiology 2014;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hahnemann ML, Nensa F, Kinner S et al. Motility mapping as evaluation tool for bowel motility: Initial results on the development of an automated color-coding algorithm in cine MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24557. . [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Menys A, Helbren E, Makanyanga J et al. Small bowel strictures in Crohn's disease: a quantitative investigation of intestinal motility using MR enterography. Neurogastroenterology & Motility 2013; 25: 967-e775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Froehlich J, Waldherr C, Stoupis C et al. MR motility imaging in Crohn’s disease improves lesion detection compared with standard MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1945-1951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bickelhaupt S, Pazahr S, Chuck N et al. Crohn’s disease: small bowel motility impairment correlates with inflammatory-related markers C-reactive protein and calprotectin. Neurogastroenterology & Motility 2013; 25: 467-e363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hylton N. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging As an Imaging Biomarker. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006; 24: 3293-3298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Oto A, Fan X, Mustafi D et al. Quantitative Analysis of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI for Assessment of Bowel Inflammation in Crohn's Disease: Pilot Study. Academic radiology 2009; 16: 1223-1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Tang JS, Choy G, Bernardo M et al. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Early Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha in a Colon Carcinoma Model. Investigative Radiology 2006; 41: 691-696 DOI: 610.1097/1001.rli.0000233882.0000283800.fb.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Alexopoulou E, Roma E, Loggitsi D et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the small bowel in children with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease: evaluation of disease activity. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39: 791-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Berthold LD, Steiner D, Scholz D et al. Imaging of Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Disease with 18F-FDG PET in Children and Adolescents. Klin Padiatr 2013; 225: 212-217
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lenze F, Wessling J, Bremer J et al. Detection and differentiation of inflammatory versus fibromatous Crohn's disease strictures: Prospective comparison of 18F‐FDG‐PET/CT, MR‐enteroclysis, and transabdominal ultrasound versus endoscopic/histologic evaluation. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2012; 18: 2252-2260 DOI: 2210.1002/ibd.22930.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar