Motta-Ramírez GA, Craviotto-Rivera AB, Rebollo-Hurtado V

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 167-176
PDF size: 592.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetive: differentiating an obstructive from a non-obstructive cause in hepatobiliary disease does not appear complex. However, the wide spectrum of pathologies whose signs and symptoms may overlap require diagnosis to be supported by different methods of study.
Introduction: the sensitivity and specificity of each of the different imaging methods at our disposal are well documented in the literature; however, different medical groups have been unable to reach a consensus.
Material and Method: A, retrospective and comparative observational study in the period from January 2011 to October 2014. Seventy-nine patients were included, divided in two groups named “jaundice with dilation” and “jaundice without dilation,” of benign or malignant etiology, from whom measurements of central tendency and sensitivity and specificity of multidetector tomography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were obtained for each group.
Results: 42 patients were women (53.1%) and 37 men (46.9%), in an age range of 17 to 94 years (mean 60 years), all of whom underwent computed tomography and magnetic resonance with different protocols.
Conclusions: when obstructive jaundice is suspected the initial study should be ultrasound. Multidetector tomography has proved more effective in finding malignant etiology. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is the non-invasive diagnostic test of choice when choledocolithiasis is suspected, always assessing the risk of having the disease or not considering endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography as alternatives when clinical suspicion is high.

REFERENCES

1. Anuario estadístico, 2012, Hospital Central Militar, Dirección General de Sanidad, Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional.

2. Del Cura JL, Pedraza S, Gayete A. Sociedad Española de Radiología Médica Radiología esencial. Tomo I, Buenos Aires; Madrid, Ed Médica Panamericana 2009 pp. 527.

3. Onofre-Castillo J, Vargas-Garza B. Sensibilidad y especificidad de colangiorresonancia en el diagnóstico de obstrucción de la vía biliar. Anal Rad Méx 2010;3:123-129.

4. Síndrome ictérico obstructivo http://es.slideshare.net/ luisa488/sindrome-icterico-obstructivo, consultado 25 octubre 2014.

5. Maneig radiologic de la ictericia radiolegsdecatalunya.cat/ formacio/resums/GE30EA05_R.pdf,http://www.google. com.mx/search?hl=&q=ictericia+elevación+bilirrubinas& start=6&sa=N consultado 27 octubre 2014

6. Frances TSE, Barkun JS, Romagnuolo J, Friedman G, Borstein J, Barkun A. Nonoperative imaging techniques in suspected biliary tract obstruction Review article. HPB 2006;8:409-425.

7. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Jaundice Guideline Summary NGC-6987; 2008.

8. Varghese JC, Lucey BC, Soto JA. Imaging of biliary disorders: Cholecystitis, Bile Duct Obstruction, Stones, and Stricture, Imaging of Biliary Disorders. En: Santiago-Medina L, Craig- Blackmore C, editores. Evidence-Based Imaging. Springer; 2006. p. 493-519.

9. Almora C, Arteaga P, Plaza G, Prieto F, Yulka HZ. Diagnóstico clínico y epidemiológico de la litiasis vesicular, revisión bibliográfica. Rev Ciencias Médicas 2012;16(1):200-214.

10. Yeh BM, Liu Ps, Soto JA, Corvera CA, Hussain HK. MR imaging and CT of the biliary tract. Radiographics 2009;29:1669–1688.

11. Ferrari FS, Fantozzi F, Tasciotti L, Vigni F, Scotto F, Frasci P. US, MRCP, CCT and ERCP: a comparative study in 131 patients with suspected biliary obstruction. Med Sci Monit 2005;11:MT8-18.