Diagnostic Imaging Pathways - Cholestatic Jaundice
- Pathway Home
- Pathway
- Images
- Teaching Points
- chol_jau
- CT
- ctc
- ercp
- EUS
- hep_jaun
- mrcp
- ptc
- us
- References
- Information for Consumers
- copyright
Pathway Home
Population Covered By The Guidance
This pathway provides guidance on imaging patients with clinically and biochemically suspected cholestatic jaundice.
Date reviewed: April 2015
Date of next review: 2017/2018
Published: July 2015
Quick User Guide
Move the mouse cursor over the PINK text boxes inside the flow chart to bring up a pop up box with salient
points.
Clicking on the PINK text box will bring up the full text.
The relative radiation level (RRL) of each
imaging investigation is displayed in the pop up box.
SYMBOL | RRL | EFFECTIVE DOSE RANGE |
![]() | None | 0 |
![]() | Minimal | < 1 millisieverts |
![]() | Low | 1-5 mSv |
![]() | Medium | 5-10 mSv |
![]() | High | >10 mSv |
Images
Teaching Points
Teaching Points
- Ultrasound is the first imaging modality used in the algorithm for the investigation of cholestatic jaundice
- Further imaging depends on whether the bile ducts are dilated
- If the bile ducts are dilated and an ultrasound fails to demonstrate a cause, further imaging depends on a provisional clinical diagnosis. Investigations may include CT scan of the abdomen, CT cholangiogram, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
- If the bile ducts are not dilated, hepatocellular causes of jaundice should be excluded prior to further imaging
- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is reserved for therapeutic indications or if there remains ongoing clinical doubt with non-diagnostic imaging studies
chol_jau
Cholestatic Jaundice
- Diagnostic approach for cholestatic jaundice depends on
- Clinical probability of whether the cause is most likely benign or malignant
- Whether the patient is a surgical candidate
- Availability of imaging techniques and the expertise with which they are offered 1
CT
Computed Tomography (CT)
- Indications
- Compared to US, CT provides a more comprehensive examination that permits evaluation of the liver, biliary tree, pancreas, portal and retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and vascular structures 8,15
- For the diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, spiral CT has a superior sensitivity of 91-97% compared to conventional CT (86%), MRI (84%) and US (76%), 16,17 and 76-88% sensitivity and 98% specificity for common bile duct stones 2,18,19
- Limitations 2,18
- False negatives due to non-enlarged common bile ducts or small stones
- False positives due to pancreatic calcifications
- Distinction of inflammatory and neoplastic masses
- 3D-negative CT cholangiopancreaticography (3D-nCTCP) is a potential substitute for the diagnosis of biliary obstruction when compared to 3D-MRCP 20
ctc
Computed Tomography Cholangiography / Intravenous Cholangiography (CT-IVC)
- CT-IVC is a non-invasive technique that can be utilised to evaluate biliary anatomy and pathology. 55 It may be an alternative to MRCP, given cost and resource allocation issues with MRI techniques
- Cohort studies have validated spiral CT-IVC when compared to invasive cholangiographic techniques (ERCP or intra-operative cholangiogram). The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of choledocholithiasis has been reported as 95% and 94-97% respectively 56,57
- A limitation of this modality arises in patients with abnormally high bilirubin levels. A level two to three times normal results in lower opacification of the biliary tree, resulting in difficulties detecting abnormal biliary anatomy and pathology 55,56,57
- Advantages
- Readily available
- Non-invasive
- High inter-observer correlation for pathology noted
- Limitations
- Image degradation in patients with high bilirubin
- Poor or absent contrast excretion resulting in a low quality scan
- Need for intravenous contrast
ercp
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
- "Gold standard" for visualising the biliary tract and for defining the cause of obstruction 2,3,11
- If there is a strong suspicion of common bile duct stones and initial imaging investigations are negative or equivocal, then ERCP is indicated 12
- Preferred in patients who are poor surgical candidates or in whom sclerosing cholangitis is suspected (high likelihood of depicting the biliary tree, diagnoses and treatment of strictures) 11
- Advantages
- Provides greater range and ease of therapeutic options for relief of the obstruction
- Disadvantages
- Complications
- Cholangitis proximal to an obstruction
- May not adequately visualize bile ducts proximal to stricture
EUS
Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS)
- Best modality for tumour staging of malignant biliary obstruction (provided mass is not >3cm in size) 6,8,29,38,39,40,41
- Sensitive for very small tumour detection 38,42
- In the evaluation of common bile duct (CBD) stones, the sensitivity of EUS ranged from 84% to 100%, with a diagnostic accuracy rate of 92–99% 40,43
- Used in patients who are good surgical candidates in order to stage a tumour or identify choledocholithiasis 11,42,44
- Comparable sensitivity to that of ERCP for extrahepatic cholestasis 6,11,45
- Superior to US or CT in diagnosis (100% sensitivity) and staging of biliary obstruction 6,46
- Limitations
- Limited availability
- Invasive
- Technically impossible in cases of previous gastric surgery
- Sometimes difficult to interpret following sphincterotomy or previous stenting procedures of the biliary tract
- Does not offer therapeutic opportunity
- By performing EUS first in suitable patients, diagnostic ERCP and its related complications can be safely avoided. EUS is a safe and accurate test to select patients for therapeutic ERCP 43,47,48,49
- In arduous clinical conditions where patients with an enlarged pancreatic head / mass or dilated pancreatic duct with / without dilated CBD and no obstructive jaundice, EUS-FNA proves to be beneficial in the diagnosis of this patient group 50,51,52
- EUS-FNA is similar or superior to ERCP tissue sampling in evaluation of suspected malignant biliary obstruction, with sensitivity and specificity of >96.5% 51,53
- The diagnostic performance of EUS versus MRCP in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis after a negative transabdominal ultrasound and / or computed tomography, is similar 54
hep_jaun
Hepatocellular Jaundice
- Causes of hepatocellular jaundice include
- Alcoholic Hepatitis
- Viral Hepatitis
- Metabolic conditions (e.g. Wilson's disease)
- Drug mediated
- Autoimmune
mrcp
Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP)
- MRCP is more suitable for imaging the biliary tree compared to diagnostic ERCP if hilar obstruction is present on CT or ultrasound
- Often performed before ERCP for all suspected biliary tumours
- Non-invasive alternative if ERCP is unsuccessful or cannot be performed (e.g. in patients with previous gastroenteric anastomoses) 22,23,24,25
- High diagnostic accuracy (>94%) for the diagnosis of bile duct obstruction, choledocholithiasis, and malignant bile duct obstruction 25,26,27,28,29,30
- Performing MRCP-first, decreased the need for subsequent ERCP up to 50% of patients, but not complications when compared to performing ERCP-first 31
- Advantages
- Non-invasive
- No ionising radiation or contrast material
- Allows diagnosis and treatment planning in many patients without invasive cholangiography
- Limitations
- Poor specificity 32
- Does not offer therapeutic opportunity
- Availability
- Cost
- Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography is extremely helpful in the evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice, an obstructive pattern of liver function, or incidentally detected biliary duct dilatation 33
- Intrabiliary MR utilizing gadolinium contrast agent provides a high spatial resolution and excellent contrast between the biliary lumen and adjacent structures. 34 The technique may be useful to evaluate biliary obstruction of unknown cause 33,34,35,36
- Presence of any three or more of these six criteria, when used in combination are highly suggestive of malignant structuring lesion 37
- Hyperenhancement relative to liver parenchyma
- Length >12 mm
- Wall thickness >3 mm
- Indistinct outer margin
- Luminal irregularity
- Asymmetry of strictured bile duct
ptc
Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography (PTC)
- Alternative if ERCP is technically not feasible or unavailable or fails to show ducts proximal to stricture
- Advantages
- Permits visualisation of the intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic biliary tree
- Enables biliary drainage and interventional procedures if obstruction is found
- Disadvantages
- Does not opacify the pancreatic duct
- Expensive and invasive procedure with significant risk of complications (risk of hepatic puncture, pneumothorax, etc.)
- Mortality 21
us
Ultrasound
- Initial investigation of choice to determine the cause of cholestasis 2,3,4,5
- Determines the presence of cholestatic jaundice by detecting dilated bile ducts (>90% sensitivity and 71-96% specificity) 2,6,7,8
- Advantages
- Non-invasive
- No ionising radiation
- Relatively inexpensive
- Can visualise the whole hepatic parenchyma
- Limitations
- Less effective than CT, EUS or direct cholangiography (ERCP or PTC) in determining the site and cause of obstruction 3,6,7
- Less accurate at detecting common bile duct stones (sensitivity 63-75% and specificity 95%) 2,9
- False negatives due to inability to see the extra-hepatic biliary tree (often because of interposed bowel gas) and absence of biliary tract dilation in the presence of obstruction 5,7,10
References
References
Date of literature search: April 2015
The search methodology is available on request. Email
References are graded from Level I to V according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Levels of Evidence. Download the document
- Balfe D, Ralls P, Bree R, DiSantis D, Glick S, Levine M, et al. Imaging strategies in the initial evaluation of the jaundiced patient. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology. 2000;215:125-33. (Guideline). View the reference
- Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Levy P, Tuzet S, Palazzo L, Vilgrain V, et al. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterology. 1994;106(4):1062-7. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Baron RL, Stanley RJ, Lee JK, Koehler RE, Melson GL, Balfe DM, et al. A prospective comparison of the evaluation of biliary obstruction using computed tomography and ultrasonography. Radiology. 1982;145(1):91-8. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Gibson RN, Yeung E, Thompson JN, Carr DH, Hemingway AP, Bradpiece HA, et al. Bile duct obstruction: radiologic evaluation of level, cause, and tumor resectability. Radiology. 1986;160(1):43-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Friedman LS. Approach to the patient with abnormal liver biochemical and function tests. [http://www.uptodate.com/contents/approach-to-the-patient-with-abnormal-liver-biochemical-and-function-tests]. UpToDate: Wolters Kluwer; [updated 2015 January 21; cited 2015 April 7]. (Review article). View the reference
- Dancygier H, Nattermann C. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in biliary tract disease: obstructive jaundice. Endoscopy. 1994;26(9):800-2. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Lalani T, Couto CA, Rosen MP, Baker ME, Blake MA, Cash BD, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria jaundice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10 (6):402-9. (Guideline). View the reference
- Tsukada K, Takada T, Miyazaki M, Miyakawa S, Nagino M, Kondo S, et al. Diagnosis of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008;15(1):31-40. (Guideline). View the reference
- Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: a prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(2):143-6. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Dong B, Chen M. Improved sonographic visualization of choledocholithiasis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1987;15(3):185-90. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Burtin P, Palazzo L, Canard JM, Person B, Oberti F, Boyer J. Diagnostic strategies for extrahepatic cholestasis of indefinite origin: endoscopic ultrasonography or retrograde cholangiography? Results of a prospective study. Endoscopy. 1997;29(5):349-55. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Borsch G, Wegener M, Wedmann B, Kissler M, Glocke M. Clinical evaluation, ultrasound, cholescintigraphy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in cholestasis. A prospective comparative clinical study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1988;10(2):185-90. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Bilbao MK, Dotter CT, Lee TG, Katon RM. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A study of 10,000 cases. Gastroenterology. 1976;70(3):314-20. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(4):425-34. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Gulliver DJ, Baker ME, Cheng CA, Meyers WC, Pappas TN. Malignant biliary obstruction: efficacy of thin-section dynamic CT in determining resectability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(3):503-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Bipat S, Phoa SS, van Delden OM, Bossuyt PM, Gouma DJ, Lameris JS, et al. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and determining resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(4):438-45. (Level I/II evidence). View the reference
- Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology. 1998;206(2):373-8. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Neitlich JD, Topazian M, Smith RC, Gupta A, Burrell MI, Rosenfield AT. Detection of choledocholithiasis: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;203(3):753-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Kim HJ, Park DI, Park JH, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK, et al. Multidetector computed tomography cholangiography with multiplanar reformation for the assessment of patients with biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22(3):400-5. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Zhang ZY, Wang D, Ni JM, Yu XR, Zhang L, Wu WJ, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional negative-contrast CT cholangiopancreatography with three-dimensional MR cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of obstructive biliary diseases. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(5):830-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Mueller PR, Harbin WP, Ferrucci JT, Jr., Wittenberg J, vanSonnenberg E. Fine-needle transhepatic cholangiography: reflections after 450 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136(1):85-90. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, Osborne H, Murray FE, Lee MJ. Role of MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed or inadequate ERCP. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(6):1527-33. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM. Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. Radiology. 1998;207(1):21-32. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Soto JA, Yucel EK, Barish MA, Chuttani R, Ferrucci JT. MR cholangiopancreatography after unsuccessful or incomplete ERCP. Radiology. 1996;199(1):91-8. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Ali M, Ahmed I, Akhtar W, Sattar A, Hussain M, Abbas Z. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography in evaluation of obstructive jaundice. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(10):1053-6. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Guibaud L, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M, Barkun AN. Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis: diagnosis with MR cholangiography. Radiology. 1995;197(1):109-15. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Becker CD, Grossholz M, Becker M, Mentha G, de Peyer R, Terrier F. Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;205(2):523-30. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, Siegenberg D, Ferrucci JT, Chuttani R. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(2):589-97. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Palmucci S, Mauro LA, La Scola S, Incarbone S, Bonanno G, Milone P, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary pathology. Radiol Med. 2010;115(5):732-46. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Liang C, Mao H, Wang Q, Han D, Li Yuxia L, Yue J, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in malignant obstructive jaundice. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011;61(2):383-8. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Bhat M, Romagnuolo J, da Silveira E, Reinhold C, Valois E, Martel M, et al. Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(9):1045-53. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Guarise A, Venturini S, Faccioli N, Pinali L, Morana G. Role of magnetic resonance in characterising extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Radiol Med. 2006;111(4):526-38. (Level IV evidence). View the reference
- Katabathina VS, Dasyam AK, Dasyam N, Hosseinzadeh K. Adult bile duct strictures: role of MR imaging and MR cholangiopancreatography in characterization. Radiographics. 2014;34(3):565-86. (Review article). View the reference
- Weiss CR, Georgiades C, Hofmann LV, Schulick R, Choti M, Thuluvath P, et al. Intrabiliary MR imaging: assessment of biliary obstruction with use of an intraluminal MR receiver coil. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(5):845-53. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Reiner CS, Merkle EM, Bashir MR, Walle NL, Nazeer HK, Gupta RT. MRI assessment of biliary ductal obstruction: is there added value of T1-weighted gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MR cholangiography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(1):W49-56. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Saluja SS, Sharma R, Pal S, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Differentiation between benign and malignant hilar obstructions using laboratory and radiological investigations: a prospective study. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):373-82. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Kim JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Kim SH, Lee JY, Choi JY, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography for the evaluation of patients with biliary strictures: differentiation of malignant from benign bile duct strictures. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(2):304-12. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Rosch T, Braig C, Gain T, Feuerbach S, Siewert JR, Schusdziarra V, et al. Staging of pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography. Comparison with conventional sonography, computed tomography, and angiography. Gastroenterology. 1992;102(1):188-99. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Tio TL, Sie LH, Kallimanis G, Luiken GJ, Kimmings AN, Huibregtse K, et al. Staging of ampullary and pancreatic carcinoma: comparison between endosonography and surgery. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(6):706-13. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Ang TL, Teo EK, Fock KM. Endosonography vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based strategies in the evaluation of suspected common bile duct stones in patients with normal transabdominal imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(8):1163-70. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Tozzi di Angelo I, Prochazka V, Holinka M, Zapletalova J. Endosonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011;155(4):339-46. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Napoleon B. Diagnosis of biliary lesions: role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of cholestasis. Endoscopy. 1998;30: (S1):A116-9.
- Lee YT, Chan FK, Leung WK, Chan HL, Wu JC, Yung MY, et al. Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: a randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(4):660-8. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, Meining A, Born P, Weigert N, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(3):390-6. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P, Pelletier G, Fritsch J, Choury AD, et al. Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis. Lancet. 1996;347(8994):75-9. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Mompoint D, Gayet B, Palazzo L, Ponsot P, et al. Endosonography: Promising method for diagnosis of extrahepatic cholestasis. Lancet.334(8673):1195-8. Level II/III evidence). View the reference
- Petrov MS, Savides TJ. Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):967-74. (Level I evidence). View the reference
- Ross WA, Wasan SM, Evans DB, Wolff RA, Trapani LV, Staerkel GA, et al. Combined EUS with FNA and ERCP for the evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice from presumed pancreatic malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(3):461-6. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Chu YL, Wang XF, Gao XZ, Qiao XL, Liu F, Yu SY, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in tandem with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of suspected distal obstructive jaundice. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(4):455-9. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Agarwal B, Krishna NB, Labundy JL, Safdar R, Akduman EI. EUS and / or EUS-guided FNA in patients with CT and/or magnetic resonance imaging findings of enlarged pancreatic head or dilated pancreatic duct with or without a dilated common bile duct. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(2):237 -42. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Krishna NB, LaBundy JL, Saripalli S, Safdar R, Agarwal B. Diagnostic value of EUS-FNA in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer with a focal lesion on CT scan/MRI but without obstructive jaundice. Pancreas. 2009;38(6):625-30. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Horwhat JD, Gerke H, Acosta RD, Pavey DA, Jowell PS. Focal or diffuse "fullness" of the pancreas on CT. Usually benign, but EUS plus/minus FNA is warranted to identify malignancy. JOP. 2009;10(1):37-42. (Level III evidence). View the reference
- Weilert F, Bhat YM, Binmoeller KF, Kane S, Jaffee IM, Shaw RE, et al. EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, single-blind, comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(1):97-104. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Ledro-Cano D. Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19(11):1007-11. (Level I evidence). View the reference
- Alibrahim E, Gibson RN, Vincent J, Speer T, Collier N, Jardine C. Spiral computed tomography-intravenous cholangiography with three- dimensional reconstructions for imaging the biliary tree. Australas Radiol. 2006;50(2):136-42. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Gibson RN, Vincent JM, Speer T, Collier NA, Noack K. Accuracy of computed tomographic intravenous cholangiography (CT-IVC) with iotroxate in the detection of choledocholithiasis. European Radiology. 2005;15(8):1634-42. (Level II evidence). View the reference
- Cabada Giadas T, Sarria Octavio de Toledo L, Martinez-Berganza Asensio MT, Cozcolluela Cabrejas R, Alberdi Ibanez I, Alvarez Lopez A, et al. Helical CT cholangiography in the evaluation of the biliary tract: application to the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Abdom Imaging. 2002;27 (1):61-70. (Level II evidence). View the reference
Further Reading
- T Hyodo, S Kumano, F Kushihata, M Okada, M Hirata, T Tsuda, et al. CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1015):887–96. (Review article). View the reference
Information for Consumers
Information for Consumers
Information from this website |
Information from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists’ website |
Consent to Procedure or Treatment Radiation Risks of X-rays and Scans Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) |
Contrast Medium (Gadolinium versus Iodine) Iodine-Containing Contrast Medium Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Radiation Risk of Medical Imaging During Pregnancy Radiation Risk of Medical Imaging for Adults and Children |
copyright
Copyright
© Copyright 2015, Department of Health Western Australia. All Rights Reserved. This web site and its content has been prepared by The Department of Health, Western Australia. The information contained on this web site is protected by copyright.
Legal Notice
Please remember that this leaflet is intended as general information only. It is not definitive and The Department of Health, Western Australia can not accept any legal liability arising from its use. The information is kept as up to date and accurate as possible, but please be warned that it is always subject to change
.File Formats
Some documents for download on this website are in a Portable Document Format (PDF). To read these files you might need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.