Simplified Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity Is Useful for Terminal Ileal but not Colonic Disease in Pediatric Crohn Disease.

BACKGROUND: Ileocolonoscopy (IC) detects mucosal inflammation and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) detects transmural inflammation in Crohn disease (CD). We aimed to evaluate the relationship between the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (MARIAs) and measures of inflammation by IC in children with newly diagnosed CD. METHODS: Retrospective review of 140 patients 6-18 years of age with CD who had baseline IC and MRE within 5 weeks of diagnosis. MARIAs was calculated for each intestinal segment (terminal ileum [TI], ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, rectum), defined as (1 × thickness > 3 mm) + (1 × edema) + (1 × fat stranding) + (2 × ulcers). Sensitivity and specificity were derived using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to compare MARIAs to IC findings. RESULTS: Using IC as the reference standard, the cutoff MARIAs ≥1 identified TI segments with active inflammation with 84% sensitivity, 73% specificity, 85% positive predictive value (PPV), 70% negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) 0.782 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.689-0.876). The cutoff MARIAs ≥2 identified TI segments with severe lesions with 87% sensitivity, 76% specificity, 87% PPV, 76% NPV, and AUC 0.814 (95% CI 0.712-0.916). There was poor sensitivity for all colonic segments. CONCLUSION: The MARIAs is feasible and accurate in reflecting disease activity in the TI, but not in the colon, in children with newly diagnosed CD. Although the MARIAs may be useful for monitoring TI disease activity over time, full assessment continues to require both IC and MRE.

Postnatal diagnosis of single-suture craniosynostosis with cranial ultrasound: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal protocol for diagnostic workup of craniosynostosis and the role of specific imaging modalities remain controversial. Skull X-rays and 3-dimensional head CTs are options when physical exam is equivocal but involve ionizing radiation. Ultrasound has emerged as an alternative modality for visualization of cranial sutures, but its use is not widespread. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of the literature on the use of ultrasound for the diagnosis of craniosynostosis. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 1062 patients were included. Overall, 300 patients (28.2%) were diagnosed with craniosynostosis. A total of 369 (34.7%) patients had their diagnosis (craniosynostosis vs. patent sutures) confirmed with another imaging modality in addition to ultrasound. Among studies, the specificity of ultrasound ranged from 86 to 100%, and the sensitivity from 71 to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography of cranial sutures is a feasible and accurate tool for the diagnosis of single-suture craniosynostosis when physical exam findings are insufficient. Although technical aspects of ultrasonography and its interpretation have an associated learning curve, ultrasound can achieve high sensitivity and specificity among patients with suspected craniosynostosis.