Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 2;12(6):718–729. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx186

Table 4.

Imaging parameters stratified by degree of oedema [in 35 patients with CD and 40 ileal segments analysed].

Parameter Grade 1 [n*** = 20] Grade 2/3 [n*** = 20] p
Length of involved bowel 8 ± 5.63 8.1 ± 5.30 0.779
Pattern of enhancement at 25 s* 0.739
• Homogeneous 7 [37%] 7 [44%]
• Layered/mucosal only 12 [63%] 9 [56%]
Pattern of enhancement at 60 s 0.527
• Homogeneous 9 [45%] 12 [60%]
• Layered/mucosal only 11 [55%] 8 [40%]
Pattern of enhancement at 180 s** 0.693
• Homogeneous 14 [74%] 16 [84%]
• Layered/mucosal only 5 [26%] 3 [16%]
Degree of enhancement at 60 s 0.344
• Mild-moderate enhancement 4 [20%] 1 [5%]
• Marked enhancement 2 [10%] 3 [15%]
Ulceration 14 [70%] 16 [80%]
Fistula 8 [40%] 16 [80%] 0.022
Abscess 8 [40%] 13 [65%] 0.205
Comb sign 4 [20%] 8 [40%] 0.301
Upstream dilation 4 [20%] 5 [25%] 1
Enhancement ratio at 25 s* 191.6 ± 93.1 155.6 ± 68.7 0.301
Enhancement ratio at 60 s 202.1 ± 73.6 180.6 ± 55.0 0.398
Enhancement ratio at 180 s** 191.4 ± 61.2 174.7 ± 53.1 0.369
ADC* 1.12 ± 0.25 1.16 ± 0.18 0.317
Wall thickness on T1W post-contrast 7.38 ± 2.29 9.29 ± 4.17 0.071
Wall thickness on T2WI 7.21 ± 1.96 7.62 ± 2.32 0.5
MaRIa score 24.9 ± 8.1 30.4 ± 9.0 0.033
Clermont score 27.7 ± 6.6 34.8 ± 7.8 0.005

Significant p-values are bolded. Quantitative data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Qualitative data are presented as number of cases [percentage of cases]

*Not available in five patients.

**Not available in two patients.

***Number of bowel segments.