Search

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for distinguishing paraduodenal pancreatitis (PDP) from pancreatic head duct adenocarcinoma (CA) in patients with diagnoses confirmed by histopathologic analysis., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Between July 2007 and July 2010, 47 patients who underwent Whipple procedure and MR imaging less than 60 days before surgery were identified retrospectively. Two relatively inexperienced fellowship trainees with 9 months of body fellowship training were asked to record the presence or absence of three MR imaging features: focal thickening of the second portion of the duodenum; abnormal enhancement of the second portion of the duodenum; and cystic focus in the expected region of the accessory pancreatic duct. Strict criteria for diagnosis of PDP included presence of all three imaging features. Any case that did not fulfill the criteria was classified as CA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for characterization of PDP was calculated for each reader with 95% confidence intervals. A κ test assessed level of agreement between readers., Results: Each reader correctly categorized 15 of 17 (88.2%) PDP cases when all three imaging criteria were met. Alternatively, 26 of 30 (86.7%) pancreatic duct CA were correctly categorized as inconsistent with PDP. Four patients with histopathologic diagnosis of CA were incorrectly classified as PDP by each reader. Agreement between the two readers showed substantial κ agreement for the diagnosis of PDP and differentiation from pancreatic duct CA., Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced MR imaging may help accurately identify PDP and distinguish it from CA when strict diagnostic criteria are followed., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13112056/-/DC1., (RSNA, 2013)

Membranes made of several different materials are available in the market, nonresorbable (e.g. ePTFE), resorbable (e.g. synthetic or collagen) and liguid applicable (e.g. Polyethylene glycol or Atrisorb). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether or not in situ application of Atrisorb could be used as a barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration. Ten patients with insufficient alveolar ridge width for implant placement participated in the study. Atrisorb in conjunction with various bone grafts was used to treat 10 different sites, 3 sites treated prior to implant placement and 7 sites in conjunction with implant placement. Augmented sites were allowed to heal for 3 to 7 months, with mean healing time of 4.7 months. Healing was uneventful with no major complications. Two sites experienced a flap dehiscence accompanied by barrier exposure during the initial healing period. Secondary healing was achieved soon after with no signs of infection, giving Atrisorb a barrier exposure rate of 20% for the present study, which corresponds to favorably to that of resorbable membranes. The liquid membrane has the potential of being a viable alternative to traditional resorbable membranes for use in GBR procedures.