MRI Pouchography
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Pelvic Collections on MRI in Patients with Ileal Pouches, and a Feasibility Study of Dynamic MRI Enema and Defaecating MRI Pouchography
IRAS ID
205599
Contact name
Guy H T Worley
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
London North West Healthcare NHS Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 0 days
Research summary
Patients suffering from Ulcerative Colitis are treated medically if appropriate, but 1 in 4 undergo surgery to remove the colon and rectum, which is curative as this disease only affects the large bowel. In order to avoid a permanent stoma, the most popular solution is to create an ‘ileal pouch’. This involves folding the end of the remaining small bowel on itself in order to create a reservoir for stool, performing the job of the rectum previously. This procedure was invented at St Mark’s in 1978, and it is estimated that at least 10,000 patients now have a ‘pouch’ internationally.
However, pouches are prone to problems, the most significant being ongoing infection in the pelvis because of leaks, inflammation of the pouch, and also problems emptying without an obvious anatomical cause. In total these problems affect around 1 in 3 patients with a pouch, and many of the difficult cases are referred to St Mark’s for local expertise.
Studies previously undertaken at St Mark's demonstrate the fact that some current imaging investigations are lacking in value due 1) there not being a defined normal standard for the investigation (as with MRI scans of ileal pouches) and 2) the investigation not being sensitive enough to pick up the necessary signs (as with x-ray pouchography).
The use of MRI enema studies in investigating ileal pouches has not previously been described. It is hypothesised that the use of static and moving MRI images of pouches will provide clinicians with greater detail than plain x-ray or CT images, and without the associated radiation dose.
REC name
London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/1785
Date of REC Opinion
3 Nov 2016
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion