Are you Koen Bouman?

Claim your profile

Publications (1)1.91 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MR enteroclysis and to compare it to video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in the analysis of suspected small-bowel disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 77 patients who underwent both MR enteroclysis and VCE and compared the findings of these studies with the findings of enteroscopy, surgery, or with the results of clinical follow-up lasting ≥2 years. RESULTS: Findings included malignant neoplasms (n = 13), benign neoplasms (n = 10), refractory celiac disease (n = 4), Crohn's disease (n = 2) and miscellaneous conditions (n = 10). Specificity of MR enteroclysis was higher than that of VCE (0.97 vs. 0.84, P = 0.047), whereas sensitivity was similar (0.79 vs. 0.74, P = 0.591). In 2/32 (6.3%) patients with both negative VCE and negative MR enteroclysis a positive diagnosis was established, compared to 5/11 (45.5%) patients in whom VCE was positive and MR enteroclysis was negative (likelihood ratio 8.1; P = 0.004), 9/11 (81.8%) patients in whom MR enteroclysis was positive and VCE was negative (likelihood ratio 23.5; P < 0.0001), and all 23 patients in whom both VCE and MR enteroclysis showed abnormalities (likelihood ratio 60.8; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: VCE and MR enteroclysis are complementary modalities. In our study-population, MR enteroclysis was more specific than VCE, while both produced the same sensitivity.
    Abdominal Imaging 04/2012; · 1.91 Impact Factor