Accuracy of Small-Intestine Contrast Ultrasonography, Compared With Computed Tomography Enteroclysis, in Characterizing Lesions in Patients With Crohn's Disease  Emma Calabrese, Francesca Zorzi, Sara Onali, Elisa Stasi, Roberto Fiori, Simonetta Prencipe, Antonino Bella, Carmelina Petruzziello, Giovanna Condino, Elisabetta Lolli, Giovanni Simonetti, Livia Biancone, Francesco Pallone  Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology  Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages 950-955 (August 2013) DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015 Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Comparison between (A) SICUS and (B) CT enteroclysis images of a CD patient. (A) The white arrows indicate bowel wall thickness, and the arrowheads indicate the lumen diameter of the terminal ileum as assessed by SICUS. (B) The white circle encloses the same segment of the terminal ileum presenting thickening and contrast enhancement as assessed by CT enteroclysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013 11, 950-955DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015) Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 (A) Correlation between SICUS data and CT enteroclysis in terms of maximum bowel wall thickness (mm) reaching statistical significance (rho, 0.79; P < .0001). (B) The Bland–Altman12 plot confirmed the agreement between the 2 techniques with 5.88% outside the limits of agreement (mean difference, −1.088; 95% limits of agreement, −5.084 to 2.908). (C) Correlation between SICUS and CT enteroclysis when disease extent (cm) was taken into account (rho, 0.89; P < .0001). (D) The Bland–Altman12 plot confirmed the agreement between the 2 techniques with 3.52% outside the limits of agreement (mean difference, −0.433; 95% limits of agreement, −13.840 to 12.975). (E) Correlation between disease extent at SICUS and surgery (cm) reached statistical significance (rho, 0.83; P < .0001). (F) The Bland–Altman12 plot confirmed the agreement between SICUS and surgery with 4.76% outside the limits of agreement (mean difference, −0.810; 95% limits of agreement, −12.770 to 11.151). Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013 11, 950-955DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015) Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 A second example of (A–C) SICUS and (D and E) CT enteroclysis images of a CD patient. (A–C) SICUS (white arrows) showed the exact location and extent of CD in this 45-year-old patient, with a long lesion in the neoterminal ileum characterized by bowel wall thickness and lumen narrowing, compared with CT enteroclysis (D and E, white circles). Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013 11, 950-955DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015) Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Comparison between (A and B) SICUS and (C) CT enteroclysis images of a CD patient. (A) The white arrows indicate bowel wall thickness and stenosis of the terminal ileum and (B) the arrowheads indicate prestenotic dilation as assessed by SICUS. (C) The white circle shows the same segment of stenosis with prestenotic dilation as assessed by CT enteroclysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013 11, 950-955DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015) Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 (A) SICUS shows a pelvic abscess (white arrows) in a 40-year-old CD patient, which was confirmed by (B) CT enteroclysis (white circle). Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2013 11, 950-955DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2013.01.015) Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions