XXXX with endoscopic correlation: single-shot fast @entity9468 and @entity2287 -enhanced fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging.

@entity1 @entity1944 @entity6680 @entity29 @entity9468 @entity2287 @entity30
PURPOSE: To compare T2-weighted breath-hold single-shot fast @entity9468 ( @entity9468 ) and @entity2287 -enhanced spoiled gradient-echo (GRE) MR imaging with contrast material administered orally and rectally for evaluating @entity1 with @entity30 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight @entity1 with @entity30 received 2% @entity6680 and water enema. The abdomen and pelvis were imaged with transverse and coronal single-shot fast @entity9468 and @entity2287 -enhanced spoiled GRE MR imaging. Two radiologists reviewed the two types of images for @entity29 . The extent, severity, and conspicuity of the disease were determined. Proof of @entity29 at MR imaging was compared with that at endoscopy, barium study, and surgery. Statistical analysis was performed with the McNemar test. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 28 @entity1 had proven abnormal bowel segments. The per- @entity1 sensitivity of @entity2287 -enhanced spoiled GRE MR imaging for the two radiologists was 100% and 96% versus 60% and 60% (P <.05) with single-shot fast @entity9468 MR imaging. @entity2287 -enhanced spoiled GRE MR images depicted more segments (54 and 52 of 61 segments; sensitivity, 89% and 85%, respectively) of the diseased bowel than did single-shot fast @entity9468 MR images (31 and 32 of 61 segments; sensitivity, 51% and 52%, respectively; P <.001). Severity of @entity30 was correctly depicted at @entity2287 -enhanced spoiled GRE imaging in 93% of @entity1 versus in 43% of @entity1 at single-shot fast @entity9468 imaging. CONCLUSION: In @entity1 with @entity30 , @entity2287 -enhanced fat-suppressed spoiled GRE MR imaging better depicted the extent and severity of @entity1944 compared with single-shot fast @entity9468 imaging.
