Acute Pancreatitis Imaging

Back

Overview

According to the revised Atlanta Classification, 2 out of 3 features are required for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: (1) acute-onset upper abdominal pain radiating to the back; (2) serum lipase or amylase levels 3 or more times higher than the normal range; and (3) classical imaging findings consistent with acute pancreatitis[1] . 

The revised Atlanta Classification divides acute pancreatitis into 3 grades: mild, moderately severe, and severe acute pancreatitis, as follows[1] :



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Focal pancreatitis involving pancreatic head. Pancreatic head is enlarged with adjacent ill-defined peripancreatic inflammation an....

Local complications of acute pancreatitis include fluid collections, pseudocyst formation, abscess, pancreatic necrosis, hemorrhage, venous thrombosis, and pseudoaneurysm formation (see the images below).[2] A pseudocyst is defined as a collection of pancreatic juice enclosed by a wall of fibrous or granulation tissue. A pseudocyst lacks a true epithelial lining and often communicates with the pancreatic duct. A pancreatic abscess is a circumscribed intra-abdominal collection of pus. The development of both pseudocyst and abscess usually requires 4 or more weeks from the initial clinical onset of acute pancreatitis.[3] Pancreatic necrosis is defined as focal or diffuse areas of nonviable pancreatic parenchyma; it usually is associated with peripancreatic fat necrosis. Necrosis usually develops early in the course of acute pancreatitis.[4]



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic abscess. Large, relatively well-circumscribed heterogeneous collection containing gas bubbles inferior to the pancreati....



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Note the nonenhancing pancreatic body anterior to the splenic vein. Also present is peripancreatic fluid exte....



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Approximately 50% of the pancreatic gland does not display enhancement after contrast administration.

Gallstones and alcohol abuse are the most common causes of acute pancreatitis, accounting for 60-80% of cases. Other causes include blunt trauma to the abdomen, iatrogenic trauma (postoperative trauma, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography), hypertriglyceridemia, hypercalcemia, drug-induced, infectious etiologies (eg, mumps, cytomegalovirus), congenital anomalies (pancreas divisum, choledochocele), ampullary or pancreatic tumors, vascular abnormalities (atherosclerotic emboli, hypoperfusion, vasculitis), cystic fibrosis, and Reye syndrome. These miscellaneous causes account for approximately 10% of cases of acute pancreatitis. In approximately 10-25% of patients, no underlying cause is found.[5, 6, 7, 8]

Preferred examination

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is the standard imaging modality for the evaluation of acute pancreatitis and its complications.[9] Using non–contrast-enhanced CT, clinicians can establish the diagnosis and demonstrate fluid collections but cannot evaluate for pancreatic necrosis or vascular complications.[10, 11]

CECT allows complete visualization of the pancreas and retroperitoneum, even in the setting of ileus or overlying bandages from a recent surgical procedure. CECT can help detect almost all major abdominal complications of acute pancreatitis, such as fluid collections, pseudocysts, abscesses, venous thrombosis, and pseudoaneurysms. In addition, CECT can be used to guide percutaneous/interventional procedures such as diagnostic fine-needle aspiration or catheter placement. CECT may be performed on severely ill patients including intubated patients. Lastly, CECT can be used as a prognostic indicator of the severity of acute pancreatitis.

Other adjunctive imaging modalities include ultrasonography (US), MRI, and angiography. US is especially useful in the diagnosis of gallstones and follow-up observation of pseudocysts. US also can be used to detect pancreatic pseudoaneurysms.[12] The diagnostic efficacy of MRI is comparable to that of CECT, although MRI examination is more time consuming and costly.[13, 14, 15, 16, 17] Angiography is primarily used to help diagnose the vascular complications of acute pancreatitis.[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]

CT and US are the guidance modalities of choice in performing diagnostic fine-needle aspiration and percutaneous drainage of fluid collections. Diagnostic fine-needle aspiration is performed to distinguish infected from noninfected pseudocysts and to delineate pancreatic abscess from infected necrosis. The aspirate should be sent at once for Gram stain and subsequent aerobic, anaerobic, and fungal cultures. Treatment regimens for these entities differ.[24, 25]

Limitations of techniques

The usefulness of CECT is limited in patients who are allergic to intravenous (IV) contrast or have renal insufficiency. Patients who have severe acute pancreatitis often require multiple scans to assess progress and/or complications. This necessitates significant radiation doses.

In addition, CECT is far less sensitive than US in detecting gallstones or biliary duct stones, a common cause of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, if gallstones or an impacted common bile duct stone is not seen on CT, US is necessary to document the presence or absence of gallstones.

Radiography

Plain films of the abdomen are part of the initial diagnostic workup of acute abdominal pain.[26] Findings on plain films are nonspecific but are suggestive of acute pancreatitis. The most commonly recognized radiologic signs associated with acute pancreatitis include the following:

In a review of 73 cases by Rifkind et al, other plain film findings included obscuration of the psoas margin, increased epigastric soft tissue density, increased gastrocolic separation, gastric curvature distortion, pancreatic calcification, and pleural effusion (usually on the left).[27] It is noteworthy that the abdominal plain film can be completely normal in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Computed Tomography

CECT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis is the standard imaging modality for evaluating acute pancreatitis and its complications. Both IV and oral contrast should be administered. Imaging protocols vary, but the most important unifying point is to obtain thin-section images during the peak of pancreatic arterial perfusion. This usually can be acquired by imaging 30-40 seconds after the administration of iodinated contrast at 3-4 mL/s using helical CT. Some advocate the use of water as a negative contrast agent, because barium in the duodenal sweep could potentially obscure a high-attenuation stone. (See the image below.)[10, 11]



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Note the nonenhancing pancreatic body anterior to the splenic vein. Also present is peripancreatic fluid exte....

Freeny recommends obtaining CECT in the following situations[28] :

Typical CT findings in acute pancreatitis include focal or diffuse enlargement of the pancreas, heterogeneous enhancement of the gland, irregular or shaggy contour of the pancreatic margins, blurring of peripancreatic fat planes with streaky soft tissue stranding densities, thickening of fascial planes, and the presence of intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal fluid collections. The fluid collections most commonly are found in the peripancreatic and anterior pararenal spaces but can extend from the mediastinum down to the pelvis.

Complications of acute pancreatitis, such as pseudocysts, abscess, necrosis, venous thrombosis, pseudoaneurysms, and hemorrhage, can be recognized with CECT.[29]

A pseudocyst appears as an oval or round water density collection with a thin or thick wall, which may enhance.

A pancreatic abscess can manifest as a thick-walled low-attenuation fluid collection with gas bubbles or a poorly defined fluid collection with mixed densities/attenuation. Gas bubbles are not specific for infection, and the diagnosis of a pancreatic abscess usually requires percutaneous fine-needle aspiration to confirm the presence of pus.

Necrotic pancreatic tissue is recognized by its failure to enhance after IV contrast administration. Balthazar et al point out that the normal unenhanced pancreas has CT attenuation measuring 30-50 Hounsfield units (HU) and that after IV contrast, the pancreas should display attenuation measuring 100-150 HU.[30] A focal or diffuse well-marginated zone of unenhanced parenchyma (>3 cm in diameter or >30% of pancreatic area) is considered a reliable CT finding for the diagnosis of necrosis. It should be noted that pancreatic necrosis may be radiologically indistinguishable from a pancreatic abscess.

Venous thrombosis can be identified through a failure of the peripancreatic vein (eg, splenic vein, portal vein) to enhance or as an intraluminal filling defect.

Associated gastric varices may be identified.

A pseudoaneurysm usually appears as a well-defined round structure with a contrast-enhancement pattern similar to that of the aorta and other arteries. Hemorrhage appears as high-attenuation fluid collections. Active bleeding is seen as contrast extravasation.

CECT can be used to assess the severity of acute pancreatitis and to estimate the prognosis. Balthazar et al developed a grading system in which patients with acute pancreatitis are classified into 1 of the following 5 grades[30] :

In patients with pancreatitis of grade A or B, the disease has been shown to follow a mild, uncomplicated clinical course; most complications occur in patients with pancreatitis of grade D or E.

Balthazar et al further constructed a CT severity index (CTSI) for acute pancreatitis that combines the grade of pancreatitis with the extent of pancreatic necrosis.[30] The CTSI assigns points to patients according to their grade of acute pancreatitis as well as the degree of pancreatic necrosis. More points are given for a higher grade of pancreatitis and for more extensive necrosis. Patients with a CTSI of 0-3 had a mortality of 3% and a complication rate of 8%. Patients with a CTSI of 4-6 had a mortality rate of 6% and a complication rate of 35%. Patients with a CTSI of 7-10 had a 17% mortality rate and a 92% complication rate.

Grade of acute pancreatis and the points assigned per grade are as follows:

Grade of necrosis and the points assigned per grade are as follows:

An initial dual-phase abdominal CT performed 72 hours or more after onset of symptoms of acute pancreatitis has not been shown to be superior to single-phase CT for evaluating severity of pancreatic and extrapancreatic changes, but the effective radiation dose may be reduced by 36% with a single-phase protocol.[31]

Degree of confidence

In a prospective study of 202 patients, Clavien et al reported a 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity in diagnosing acute pancreatitis via CECT.[32] Balthazar et al reported an overall accuracy of 80-90% in the detection of pancreatic necrosis.[30] Small areas of necrosis involving less than 30% of the pancreas can be missed. Nevertheless, the extent of pancreatic necrosis has been found to correlate well with operative findings and clinical severity. In a study by Block et al, the positive predictive value of CECT for pancreatic necrosis was found to be 92%.[33]

False positives/negatives

The pancreas may appear normal in approximately 25% of patients with mild pancreatitis. In the acute phase of pancreatitis, a small number of patients will have a false-positive diagnosis for necrosis due to massive interstitial edema and vasoconstriction of the vascular arcades. Repeat CT within a few days may show normal pancreatic enhancement.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Although CT has long been the mainstay for imaging acute pancreatitis and its complications, MRI is an excellent alternative imaging modality.[34, 35, 36] MRI is a viable alternative in situations in which CECT is contraindicated, such as in patients with contrast allergy or renal insufficiency. (See the images below.)



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Focal pancreatitis involving pancreatic head. Pancreatic head is enlarged with adjacent ill-defined peripancreatic inflammation an....



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic abscess. Large, relatively well-circumscribed heterogeneous collection containing gas bubbles inferior to the pancreati....



View Image

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Approximately 50% of the pancreatic gland does not display enhancement after contrast administration.

In addition to T1-weighted and fast spin-echo T2-weighted sequences, 2-dimensional Fourier transform (FT) and 3-dimensional FT gradient-echo sequences can be used to rapidly image the pancreas during patient breath holds; this reduces the artifacts related to physiologic motion.

Bolus contrast administration of gadolinium chelates can be used to assess for pancreatic necrosis. The quality of upper abdominal imaging is enhanced further with the use of phased-array surface coils and fat-suppression techniques.

Detrimental effects of physiologic motion can be reduced further using ultrafast T2-weighted sequences, such as single-shot fast spin-echo or half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo-spin echo (HASTE) sequences. Subsecond image acquisitions provide quality diagnostic images even in uncooperative or tachypneic patients. These sequences also are used routinely for depicting the biliary tract in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). The normal pancreas demonstrates relatively high signal intensity on T1-weighted images with fat suppression.

The morphologic changes of acute pancreatitis are similar on CT and MRI.

The pancreas may be enlarged focally (usually the pancreatic head) or diffusely. Acute inflammatory changes appear as strands of low signal intensity in the surrounding peripancreatic fat.

Complications of acute pancreatitis also can be identified. Hemorrhage is characterized by T1 shortening or high signal intensity on T1-weighted sequences with fat suppression. Peripancreatic fluid collections, pseudocysts, and abscesses are recognized by their high signal intensity on T2-weighted sequences. Devascularized or necrotic portions of the pancreas fail to enhance on dynamic gadolinium-enhanced images. MRI also may be better than CT in detecting areas of sterile pancreatic necrosis in what appear to be simple pseudocysts on CT.

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (gadopentetate dimeglumine [Magnevist], gadobenate dimeglumine [MultiHance], gadodiamide [Omniscan], gadoversetamide [OptiMARK], gadoteridol [ProHance]) have recently been linked to the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) or nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy (NFD). For more information, see the Medscape Reference topic Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis. The disease has occurred in patients with moderate to end-stage renal disease after being given a gadolinium-based contrast agent to enhance MRI or MRA scans.

As of late December 2006, the FDA had received reports of 90 such cases of NSF/NFD . Worldwide, over 200 cases have been reported, according to the FDA. NSF/NFD is a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease. Characteristics include red or dark patches on the skin; burning, itching, swelling, hardening, and tightening of the skin; yellow spots on the whites of the eyes; joint stiffness with trouble moving or straightening the arms, hands, legs, or feet; pain deep in the hip bones or ribs; and muscle weakness.

Degree of confidence

In a small study by Saifuddin et al, MRI was found to be equivalent to CECT in helping assess the location and extent of peripancreatic inflammatory changes and fluid collections.[37] In addition, MRI was found to be equivalent in helping assess the degree of pancreatic necrosis. Chalmers et al showed that MRI is more effective than CECT in helping characterize the content of fluid collections and in helping demonstrate gallstones.[38]

False positives/negatives

In mild cases of acute pancreatitis, the pancreas can appear completely normal on MRI. MRI also is limited in detecting gas and calcifications.

Ultrasonography

Jeffrey recommends obtaining images of the pancreas and the peripancreatic compartments, such as the lesser sac, anterior pararenal space, and transverse mesocolon, by scanning in the supine, longitudinal, transverse, semi-erect, and coronal planes.[39, 40, 41] However, regions of the pancreas may not be visible by US because of overlying bowel gas.

The spleen can be used as an acoustic window to image the pancreatic tail.

Laing et al advise radiologists to scrutinize the intrapancreatic portion of the common bile duct carefully for biliary stones.[42]

Doppler techniques should be used to assess vascular complications of acute pancreatitis, such as venous thrombosis and pseudoaneurysm formation.

US is the most sensitive modality for concomitantly evaluating the biliary tree/gallbladder.

More definitive findings include a diffusely enlarged hypoechoic gland. Focal enlargement of the pancreatic head and body also may be seen.

Complications of acute pancreatitis may be identified. Peripancreatic free fluid collections are identified as ill-defined anechoic collections. The fluid collections may demonstrate internal echoes/debris or septations if hemorrhage or a superimposed infection has occurred.

Extrapancreatic spread of acute pancreatitis may be the only sonographic manifestation of acute pancreatitis in some patients.

Pseudocysts appear as well-defined round or oval anechoic fluid collections with through transmission. Infected and noninfected pseudocysts are indistinguishable from each other sonographically. US often is used to monitor the resolution of pancreatic pseudocysts.

A pancreatic abscess may appear as a complex cystic structure with internal debris/septations and, possibly, echogenic gas bubbles. A pseudoaneurysm often appears as a cystic mass with turbulent arterial flow within the mass.

Acute hemorrhage may be identified as a hyperechoic fluid collection. Venous thrombosis can be identified as an intraluminal filling defect. Associated gastric varices may be appreciated.

Degree of confidence

A primary limitation of US is that often the pancreas cannot be visualized secondary to overlying bowel gas. Neoptolemos et al report a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 100% in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis by US.[43]

False positives/negatives

The pancreas may appear completely normal in mild cases of acute pancreatitis.

Angiography

Vascular complications of acute pancreatitis result from the proteolytic effects of the pancreatic enzymes that cause erosion of blood vessels, which often results in pseudoaneurysm formation or free rupture. The splenic artery, followed by the pancreaticoduodenal and gastroduodenal arteries, are affected most commonly. The left gastric, hepatic, and small intrapancreatic arteries are involved less often.

If acute hemorrhage or pseudoaneurysm is suspected or diagnosed by US or CECT, a celiac/superior mesenteric arteriogram should be performed to definitively assess the extent of vascular involvement. In addition, permanent or temporary therapeutic embolization can be performed. The primary contraindication for angiography is a hemodynamically unstable patient.

The precise bleeding point is identified by noting free contrast extravasation. Once the site of pseudoaneurysm or the source of active bleeding is identified, it can be treated by Gelfoam embolization, various coil occlusion devices, or tissue adhesives (eg, bucrylate). Superselective microcoil embolization also has been advocated by Reber et al.[44] Vujic has suggested using small Gelfoam particles to control diffuse pancreatic surface bleeding.[45] Diffuse bleeding from the gland may appear angiographically as a prominent blush.

Vujic reports that embolization may be used as a temporizing measure to slow bleeding so that the patient may be operated on electively.[45] This temporary therapeutic procedure involves selective or nonselective Gelfoam embolization or balloon occlusion of the main celiac trunk.

Complications of celiac/superior mesenteric arteriography and embolization include arterial injury such as thrombosis, dissection, or rupture, distal embolization, ischemia of visceral organs such as the spleen and bowel, coil malpositioning, and rebleeding.

Venous thrombosis of the splenic vein and/or collateral venous pathways also may be diagnosed via selective angiography.

Degree of confidence

Precise identification of the pseudoaneurysm or bleeding site is crucial for effective treatment. Gambiez et al and Boudghene et al have reported sensitivities of 93% and 96%, respectively, in identifying the bleeding site.[46, 47] Success rates of 79% and 78% have been reported by Mandel et al and Boudghene et al, respectively, in embolizing pancreatic pseudoaneurysms.[48, 47]

False positives/negatives

Koehler et al have noted that failure to identify the bleeding source may be because of intermittent arterial bleeding, bleeding from a larger surface area, and venous bleeding.[49] Gambiez et al have reported improper identification of the bleeding artery, inability to catheterize the bleeding vessel selectively, and inexperience of the angiographer as causes of embolization failure.[46]

Author

Glenda L Romero-Urquhart, MD, Diagnostic Radiologist, West Coast Radiology Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editors

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD, Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Spencer B Gay, MD, Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia School of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

John Karani, MBBS, FRCR, Clinical Director of Radiology and Consultant Radiologist, Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, UK

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Glenn Krinsky, MD,

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Jeffrey Phillips, MD Associate Clinical Professor of Radiological Sciences, University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine; Chief of Diagnostic Radiology, Associate Chair, Department of Radiology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

Jeffrey Phillips, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References

  1. Sureka B, Bansal K, Patidar Y, Arora A. Imaging lexicon for acute pancreatitis: 2012 Atlanta Classification revisited. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2015 Jul 29. [View Abstract]
  2. Al-Bahrani AZ, Holt A, Hamade AM, Abid GH, Laasch HU, O'Shea SJ, et al. Acute pancreatitis: an under-recognized risk of percutaneous transhepatic distal biliary intervention. HPB (Oxford). 2006. 8(6):446-50. [View Abstract]
  3. Aghdassi AA, Mayerle J, Kraft M, Sielenkämper AW, Heidecke CD, Lerch MM. Pancreatic pseudocysts - when and how to treat?. HPB (Oxford). 2006. 8(6):432-41. [View Abstract]
  4. Marshall JB. Acute pancreatitis. A review with an emphasis on new developments. Arch Intern Med. 1993 May 24. 153(10):1185-98. [View Abstract]
  5. Ascher S, Semelka R, Brown J. Pancreas, spleen, bowel, and peritoneum. In: Edelman RR, Hesselink JR, Zlatkin MB, eds. Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Vol 2. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1996:1564-609.
  6. Fried AM. Retroperitoneum, pancreas, spleen, and lymph nodes. In: McGahan JP, Goldberg BB, eds. Diagnostic Ultrasound: A Logical Approach. Lippincott-Raven. 1998:761-85.
  7. Hahn PF. Biliary system, pancreas, spleen, and alimentary tract. In: Stark DD, Bradley WG, Bradley WG, eds. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Vol 1. 3rd ed. Mosby-Year Book. 1999:471-501.
  8. [Guideline] Tenner S, Baillie J, Dewitt J, Vege SS. American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul 30. [View Abstract]
  9. Hirota M, Satoh K, Kikuta K, Masamune A, Kume K, Hamada S, et al. Early detection of low enhanced pancreatic parenchyma by contrast-enhanced computed tomography predicts poor prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2012 Oct. 41(7):1099-104. [View Abstract]
  10. Hall TC, Stephenson JS, Jones MJ, Ngu WS, Horsfield MA, Rajesh A, et al. Is Abdominal Fat Distribution Measured by Axial CT Imaging an Indicator of Complications and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis?. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Oct 6. [View Abstract]
  11. Banday IA, Gattoo I, Khan AM, Javeed J, Gupta G, Latief M. Modified Computed Tomography Severity Index for Evaluation of Acute Pancreatitis and its Correlation with Clinical Outcome: A Tertiary Care Hospital Based Observational Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Aug. 9 (8):TC01-5. [View Abstract]
  12. Yoon LY, Moon JH, Choi HJ, Kim DC, Seo JY, Lee TH, et al. Clinical usefulness of intraductal ultrasonography for the management of acute biliary pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jul 22. [View Abstract]
  13. Ward J, Chalmers AG, Guthrie AJ. T2-weighted and dynamic enhanced MRI in acute pancreatitis: comparison with contrast enhanced CT. Clin Radiol. 1997 Feb. 52(2):109-14. [View Abstract]
  14. Thoeni RF, Blankenberg F. Pancreatic imaging. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 1993 Sep. 31(5):1085-113. [View Abstract]
  15. Koo BC, Chinogureyi A, Shaw AS. Imaging acute pancreatitis. Br J Radiol. 2010 Feb. 83(986):104-12. [View Abstract]
  16. Thomas S, Kayhan A, Lakadamyali H, Oto A. Diffusion MRI of acute pancreatitis and comparison with normal individuals using ADC values. Emerg Radiol. 2012 Jan. 19(1):5-9. [View Abstract]
  17. Li XH, Zhang XM, Ji YF, Jing ZL, Huang XH, Yang L, et al. Renal and perirenal space involvement in acute pancreatitis: An MRI study. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Aug. 81(8):e880-7. [View Abstract]
  18. Balthazar EJ, Freeny PC, vanSonnenberg E. Imaging and intervention in acute pancreatitis. Radiology. 1994 Nov. 193(2):297-306. [View Abstract]
  19. Dalzell DP, Scharling ES, Ott DJ, Wolfman NT. Acute pancreatitis: the role of diagnostic imaging. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1998 Sep. 39(5):339-63. [View Abstract]
  20. Munoz A, Katerndahl DA. Diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2000 Jul 1. 62(1):164-74. [View Abstract]
  21. Ranson JH. Diagnostic standards for acute pancreatitis. World J Surg. 1997 Feb. 21(2):136-42. [View Abstract]
  22. vanSonnenberg E, Casola G, Varney RR, Wittich GR. Imaging and interventional radiology for pancreatitis and its complications. Radiol Clin North Am. 1989 Jan. 27(1):65-72. [View Abstract]
  23. Şurlin V, Săftoiu A, Dumitrescu D. Imaging tests for accurate diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 28. 20 (44):16544-9. [View Abstract]
  24. Carter R. Percutaneous management of necrotizing pancreatitis. HPB (Oxford). 2007. 9(3):235-9. [View Abstract]
  25. Wada K, Takada T, Hirata K, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Yokoe M, et al. Treatment strategy for acute pancreatitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010 Jan. 17(1):79-86. [View Abstract]
  26. Rifkind KM, Lawrence LR, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis. Initial roentgenographic signs. N Y State J Med. 1976 Nov. 76(12):1968-72. [View Abstract]
  27. Rifkind KM, Lawrence LR, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis. Initial roentgenographic signs. N Y State J Med. 1976 Nov. 76(12):1968-72. [View Abstract]
  28. Freeny PC. Incremental dynamic bolus computed tomography of acute pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol. 1993 Jun. 13(3):147-58. [View Abstract]
  29. Golzarian J, Nicaise N, Deviere J. Transcatheter embolization of pseudoaneurysms complicating pancreatitis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1997 Nov-Dec. 20(6):435-40. [View Abstract]
  30. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology. 1990 Feb. 174(2):331-6. [View Abstract]
  31. Avanesov M, Weinrich JM, Kraus T, Derlin T, Adam G, Yamamura J, et al. MDCT of acute pancreatitis: Intraindividual comparison of single-phase versus dual-phase MDCT for initial assessment of acute pancreatitis using different CT scoring systems. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Nov. 85 (11):2014-2022. [View Abstract]
  32. Clavien PA, Hauser H, Meyer P, Rohner A. Value of contrast-enhanced computerized tomography in the early diagnosis and prognosis of acute pancreatitis. A prospective study of 202 patients. Am J Surg. 1988 Mar. 155(3):457-66. [View Abstract]
  33. Block S, Maier W, Bittner R, et al. Identification of pancreas necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis: imaging procedures versus clinical staging. Gut. 1986 Sep. 27(9):1035-42. [View Abstract]
  34. Mitchell DG, Shapiro M, Schuricht A, et al. Pancreatic disease: findings on state-of-the-art MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Sep. 159(3):533-8. [View Abstract]
  35. Xiao B, Zhang XM, Tang W, Zeng NL, Zhai ZH. Magnetic resonance imaging for local complications of acute pancreatitis: a pictorial review. World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun 14. 16(22):2735-42. [View Abstract]
  36. Said K, Albiin N, Lindberg B, Brismar TB, Karrar A, Permert J, et al. Pancreatic duct changes are not associated with early signs of chronic pancreatitis at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr 12. [View Abstract]
  37. Saifuddin A, Ward J, Ridgway J. Comparison of MR and CT scanning in severe acute pancreatitis: initial experiences. Clin Radiol. 1993 Aug. 48(2):111-6. [View Abstract]
  38. Chalmers AG. The role of imaging in acute pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Feb 1997. 9(2):106-16. [View Abstract]
  39. Jeffrey RB Jr. Sonography in acute pancreatitis. Radiol Clin North Am. 1989 Jan. 27(1):5-17. [View Abstract]
  40. Seicean A, Badea R, Stan-Iuga R, Gulei I, Pop T, Pascu O. The added value of real-time harmonics contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography for the characterisation of pancreatic diseases in routine practice. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2010 Mar. 19(1):99-104. [View Abstract]
  41. Ardengh JC, Malheiros CA, Rahal F, Pereira V, Ganc AJ. Microlithiasis of the gallbladder: role of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2010 Jan-Feb. 56(1):27-31. [View Abstract]
  42. Laing FC, Jeffrey RB, Wing VW. Improved visualization of choledocholithiasis by sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Nov. 143(5):949-52. [View Abstract]
  43. Neoptolemos JP, Hall AW, Finlay DF, et al. The urgent diagnosis of gallstones in acute pancreatitis: a prospective study of three methods. Br J Surg. 1984 Mar. 71(3):230-3. [View Abstract]
  44. Reber PU, Patel AG, Baer HU. Acute hemorrhage in chronic pancreatitis: diagnosis and treatment options including superselective microcoil embolization. Pancreas. 1999 May. 18(4):399-402. [View Abstract]
  45. Vujic I, Andersen BL, Stanley JH. Pancreatic and peripancreatic vessels: embolization for control of bleeding in pancreatitis. Radiology. 1984 Jan. 150(1):51-5. [View Abstract]
  46. Gambiez LP, Ernst OJ, Merlier OA. Arterial embolization for bleeding pseudocysts complicating chronic pancreatitis. Arch Surg. 1997 Sep. 132(9):1016-21. [View Abstract]
  47. Boudghene F, L''Hermine C, Bigot JM. Arterial complications of pancreatitis: diagnostic and therapeutic aspects in 104 cases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1993 Jul-Aug. 4(4):551-8. [View Abstract]
  48. Mandel SR, Jaques PF, Sanofsky S. Nonoperative management of peripancreatic arterial aneurysms. A 10-year experience. Ann Surg. 1987 Feb. 205(2):126-8. [View Abstract]
  49. Koehler PR, Nelson JA, Berenson MM. Massive extra-enteric gastrointestinal bleeding: angiographic diagnosis. Radiology. 1976 Apr. 119(1):41-4. [View Abstract]
  50. Bradley EL 3rd. A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg. 1993 May. 128(5):586-90. [View Abstract]
  51. Safrit HD, Rice RP. Gastrointestinal complications of pancreatitis. Radiol Clin North Am. 1989 Jan. 27(1):73-9. [View Abstract]
  52. Siegel MJ, Sivit CJ. Pancreatic emergencies. Radiol Clin North Am. 1997 Jul. 35(4):815-30, 814. [View Abstract]
  53. Vujic I. Vascular complications of pancreatitis. Radiol Clin North Am. 1989 Jan. 27(1):81-91. [View Abstract]

Acute pancreatitis. Focal pancreatitis involving pancreatic head. Pancreatic head is enlarged with adjacent ill-defined peripancreatic inflammation and fluid collections.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic abscess. Large, relatively well-circumscribed heterogeneous collection containing gas bubbles inferior to the pancreatic head. This collection was drained successfully and percutaneously via a 12Fr pigtail catheter.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Note the nonenhancing pancreatic body anterior to the splenic vein. Also present is peripancreatic fluid extending anteriorly from the pancreatic head.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Approximately 50% of the pancreatic gland does not display enhancement after contrast administration.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Note the nonenhancing pancreatic body anterior to the splenic vein. Also present is peripancreatic fluid extending anteriorly from the pancreatic head.

Acute pancreatitis. Focal pancreatitis involving pancreatic head. Pancreatic head is enlarged with adjacent ill-defined peripancreatic inflammation and fluid collections.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic abscess. Large, relatively well-circumscribed heterogeneous collection containing gas bubbles inferior to the pancreatic head. This collection was drained successfully and percutaneously via a 12Fr pigtail catheter.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Approximately 50% of the pancreatic gland does not display enhancement after contrast administration.

Acute pancreatitis. Focal pancreatitis involving pancreatic head. Pancreatic head is enlarged with adjacent ill-defined peripancreatic inflammation and fluid collections.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic abscess. Large, relatively well-circumscribed heterogeneous collection containing gas bubbles inferior to the pancreatic head. This collection was drained successfully and percutaneously via a 12Fr pigtail catheter.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Note the nonenhancing pancreatic body anterior to the splenic vein. Also present is peripancreatic fluid extending anteriorly from the pancreatic head.

Acute pancreatitis. Pancreatic necrosis. Approximately 50% of the pancreatic gland does not display enhancement after contrast administration.