4.7 Review

Cross-Sectional Imaging Instead of Colonoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Lights and Shadows

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11020353

关键词

bowel ultrasound; inflammatory bowel disease; cross-sectional imaging; transmural healing; point-of care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article summarizes the current evidence on the use of cross-sectional imaging techniques as cost-effective, noninvasive, and reliable alternatives to colonoscopy for monitoring patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).
International guidelines recommend a treat-to-target strategy with a close monitoring of disease activity and therapeutic response in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Colonoscopy (CS) represents the current first-line procedure for evaluating disease activity in IBD. However, as it is expensive, invasive and poorly accepted by patients, CS is not appropriate for frequent and repetitive reassessments of disease activity. Recently, cross-sectional imaging techniques have been increasingly shown as reliable tools for assessing IBD activity. While computed tomography (CT) is hampered by radiation risks, routine implementation of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) for close monitoring is limited by its costs, low availability and long examination time. Novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based techniques, such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), can overcome some of these weaknesses and have been shown as valuable options for IBD monitoring. Bowel ultrasound (BUS) is a noninvasive, highly available, cheap, and well accepted procedure that has been demonstrated to be as accurate as CS and MRE for assessing and monitoring disease activity in IBD. Furthermore, as BUS can be quickly performed at the point-of-care, it allows for real-time clinical decision making. This review summarizes the current evidence on the use of cross-sectional imaging techniques as cost-effective, noninvasive and reliable alternatives to CS for monitoring patients with IBD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据