EFSUMB Recommendations and Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound (GIUS):
Part 2: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (Single version)

Ultraschall in Med 2018; 39: 304-317

EFSUMB-Empfehlungen und klinische Leitlinien für den gastrointestinalen Ultraschall (GIUS) chronisch entzündlichen Darmerkrankungen (CED) 

Giovanni Maconi1, KimNylund2, Tomas Ripolles3, Emma Calabrese4, Klaus Dirks5, Christoph F. Dietrich6,
Alois Hollerweger7,Ioan Sporea8,Adrian Saftoiu9,ChristianMaaser10, Trygve Hausken11, Antony P. Higginson12, Dieter Nürnberg13, Nadia Pallotta14, Laura Romanini15, Carla Serra16, Odd Helge Gilja17


  1. National Centre for Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
  2. Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, “L.Sacco” University Hospital, Milan, Italy
  3. Department of Radiology, Hospital Barmherzige Brüder, Salzburg, Austria
  4. Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain
  5. Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, Italy
  6. Department of Radiology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  7. Department of Digestive System, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital and University of Bologna, Italy
  8. Department of Internal Medicine 2, Caritas Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
  9. Dept. of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, "Victor Babes", University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Romania
  10. Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania
  11. Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, Rems-Murr- Klinikum Winnenden, Germany
  12. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, and Department of Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
  13. Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
  14. Dept. of Radiology, Radiologia 1, Spedali Civili di Brescia, Italy
  15. Outpatients Department of Gastroenterology, University Teaching Hospital Lueneburg, Germany
  16. Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany
  17. National Centre of Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Norway

Gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel diseases, guide-lines, ultrasound, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, IBD, ultrasonography

Received 03.07.2017
Accepted 05.12.2017


Published online: March 22, 2018 | Ultraschall in Med 2018; 39: 304–317 © Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Stuttgart · New York
ISSN 0172-4614

Prof. Giovanni Maconi
Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, “L. Sacco” University Hospital, “L. Sacco” University Hospital, Via GB Grassi, 74, 20157 Milan, Italy
Tel.: ++ 39/2/ 39 04 31 64
Fax: ++39/2/3942232


The accuracy and usefulness of gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) for detecting activity and complications of inflamma-tory bowel diseases (IBD), has been reported in studies, pro-moting this technique as an important tool for the manage-ment of IBD patients. Whilst well recognised by international guidelines, standardization and general agreement in the definition of the luminal and extra-intestinal features, still need to be well defined.
A task force group of 17 experts in GIUS faced this issue, by developing recommendations and clinical guidelines for the use of GIUS in IBD, under the auspices of EFSUMB. This article presents the consensus on the current data on sonographic features of IBD and summarises the accuracy of different sonographic modalities for the management of IBD patients.


Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are chronic inflam-matory bowel diseases (IBD) with increasing incidence and preval-ence worldwide [1]. The onset of IBD may occur in different dec-ades of life with CD being more frequent in the second and third decade. Many patients are still faced with a diagnostic delay [2, 3].

Diagnostic imaging in the management of IBD

IBD patients need clinical, biochemical, endoscopic, and cross-sectional assessment to confirm the diagnosis and flares of the disease, to detect complications and to guide treatment. To date, endoscopy remains the main diagnostic procedure since it allows biopsy and histological evaluation [4]. However, it has limitations with respect to the assessment of the complications and proximal ileal extension of CD [5]. Furthermore, European guidelines on diagnostics in IBD have recommended complementary imaging methods, such as gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS), computed tomography enterography (CTE) and magnetic resonance entero-graphy (MRE) for the diagnosis and determination of the location, extent and complications of CD [6].

Gastrointestinal ultrasound and other imaging tools in IBD

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that GIUS, CTE and MRE have comparable diagnostic accuracy for the initial assessment of CD, the monitoring of disease activity and progres-sion, and for assessing its main complications (stenoses, fistulae and abscesses) [7 – 10] The latest consensus guidelines by the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Radiology (ESGAR) for imaging in IBD have recommended GIUS, CTE, or MRE to detect small bowel CD at its first presentation, to assess disease activity of the terminal ileum, to diagnose stenoses of the small bowel and to assess penetrating complications [11]. Among these techniques, GIUS has the advantage of being well-tolerated, radiation-free, repeat-able, generally available and less expensive [12].

Advantages and limitations of GIUS

The increasing worldwide interest in GIUS for IBD has been recently pointed out [12 – 14], but issues need to be faced before wide-spread use, such as standardization and general agreement regarding the definition of the intestinal and extures, and the criteria for the detection of IBD, which are still not well defined. Indeed the sensitivity and specificity of the technique may vary according to the criteria and cut-offs used [7, 8, 15 – 19].
For this reason our international team of GIUS experts, under the umbrella of the European Federation of Societies for Ultra-sound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), cooperated in order to establish GIUS recommendations for assessing IBD.

Methodological structure and classification of the consensus levels

The creation of the Task Force Group (TGF) of GIUS experts, the de-velopment of guidelines according to a modified Delphi method and all steps that have led to the statements regarding the defini-tion criteria and landmarks of the US features of IBD, with their Lev-el of Evidence (LoE) and Grade of Recommendation (GoR) [20] have been reported in detail in the online version of this issue. All state-ments in this issue include an agreement/disagreement level that has been scored on a five-point Likert scale as follows: A+: agree; A-: rather agree; I: indecisive; D-: rather disagree; D+: disagree.


[1.] GIUS is recommended to be used to detect IBD at its firstnsus 13/13 presentation, and to assess CD location, activity and pos-sible complications [LoE 1a, GoR A]. Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17;

Features of Crohn’s disease

Crohn’s disease, especially when located in the small bowel, can be difficult to detect and challenging to follow-up, since it pre-sents with both intestinal and extra-intestinal features. Transab-dominal GIUS can assess luminal, parietal and extra-parietal fea-tures of CD and allows the detection and assessment of its severity.

Luminal and parietal features

Bowel wall thickening (BWT) is by far the most important and most used parameter when diagnosing CD, and it is the most con-sistently used parameter in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to detect the disease [7, 8]. Indeed, BWT is also a reproducible parameter between investigators [21]. We recommend measur-ing wall thickness in the anterior wall of the bowel (or where it is better visible) in the longitudinal direction, avoiding haustrations and mucosal folds. The cursor/calipers should be placed at the end of the interface echo between the serosa and the proper muscle to the start of the interface echo between the lumen and the mucosa [22, 23].
The cut-off for the detection of CD varies among studies. How-ever, the latest meta-analysis, which included 15 prospective stud-ies, showed that a cut-off value of 3 mm had a sensitivity and speci-ficity of 89 % and 96 %, respectively, while other cut-off values (4 mm or more) yielded a sensitivity of 87 % and a specificity of 98 % [16]. Moreover, this study also showed that increased BWT is the best parameter to detect CD located in the small bowel.The thickening of each single layer of the bowel wall and its clinical significance in CD have been poorly investigated so far. It seems that the proper muscle layer and submucosal layer are thicker in patients with poor response to medical treatment and higher risk of surgery [24, 25] and that the increased thickening of the submucosa is associated with active CD [26]. Overall the degree of BWT is correlated with clinical and biochemical activity of CD, but the correlation is weak [27 – 30]. The increased BWT is also the most common parameter to detect CD recurrence after surgery and its degree seems to be correlated with the severity of endoscopic recurrence (see below).
Furthermore, improvement or even normalization of BWT after immunosuppressive treatment takes a long time and occurs only in a small percentage of patients [27, 31 – 33]. Conversely, the lack of improvement or the increase of BWT after treatment is correlated with high risk of surgery [33, 34].


[2. ]   Bowel wall thickening measured by GIUS can be used to accurately evaluate Crohn’s disease, in particular when located in the small bowel [LoE 1a, GoR A].
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/17; A- 2/17; I 1/17
[3. ]   Bowel wall thickening > 3 mm as measured with GIUS should be used as a cut-off for the detection of Crohn’s disease when a high sensitivity is preferred while bowel wall thickening > 4 mm should be used when a high speci-ficity is preferred [LoE 1a, GoR A].
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/17; A- 1/17; D- 1/17
[4. ]   Clinical disease activity in Crohn’s disease is correlated with bowel wall thickness and can be estimated using GIUS [LoE 2b, GoR A].
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/17; A- 1/17; D- 2/17

Echo pattern
The bowel wall echo pattern may have variable features in CD. The wall layers may be intact and all clearly visible with preserved stra-tification but may also be focally or extensively disrupted (disrup-ted or hypoechoic echo pattern). The diseased bowel may also show tracts with preserved stratification alternating with a disrup-ted echo pattern.
Changes in the predominance of the layers or loss of stratification may be related to different disease aspects [26, 35, 36]. The loss of mural stratification (the disrupted or hypoechoic echo pat-tern) correlates with clinical and biochemical CD activity [27, 37, 38] with prevalent histological inflammation [39] and with increased risk of surgery [40 – 42]. In vitro studies revealed that the focal disappearance sign or focal destruction of wall stratifica-tion is caused by deep longitudinal ulcerations [43 – 45].


[5. ]   GIUS can demonstrate preserved or disrupted stratifica-tion of a thickened bowel wall in Crohn’s disease [LoE 4, GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17

[6. ]   The focal or extensive disruption of bowel wall layers can be detected by GIUS and suggests severe disease, possibly with ulcerations [LoE 4, GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/16; A- 1/16

[7. ]   Increased bowel wall thickening and loss of stratification as detected by GIUS suggest a higher risk of surgery in patients with Crohn´s disease [LoE 4, GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/17; A- 1/17; D- 1/17


Splanchnic vascularity in CD
Crohn’s disease affects the in- and outflow of splanchnic vessels that can be assessed using pulse wave Doppler. Clinical disease activity, namely disease activity established by clinical indices such as Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or Harvey Bradshow Index (HBI), is associated with increased flow in the mesenteric and portal vein or mesenteric arteries, either shown as increased maximum velocity, time-averaged mean velocity, flow volume or reduced re-sistive index in fasting patients in some studies [46 – 52], but with more controversial results in other studies [52 – 54]. Studies have also compared Doppler US of mesenteric blood flow with endo-scopic activity of CD or a combination of clinical, endoscopic and radiological findings with conflicting results [55 – 58].
The rather disappointing results indicated by measuring flow parameters in splanchnic vessels are probably related to the extensive physiological variability in the flow, also well-known in the healthy population [59, 60]. Furthermore the intra-subject, inter-observer and inter-equipment variability of color Doppler imaging (CDI) measurements are well documented [61 – 63].


[8.] Doppler US of the large mesenteric vessels is not routinely recommended for estimation of disease activity in IBD [LoE 4, GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

Color Doppler assessment of bowel wall in CD
A more focused approach on CD is the measurement of the vascu-larity in the affected bowel wall. Bowel wall vascularity can be determined at the level of the most thickened segments, by color or power Doppler US, using special presets optimized for slow flow detection [23]. Color Doppler flow is usually semi-quantita-tive and graded subjectively. There are scoring systems assessing thedegreeofvascularity basedonthickeningof thebowelwall coupled with the number, size and extent of the power Doppler signals [64, 65].
This subjective assessment of vascularity seems to reflect ves-sel density and inflammatory activity in the histologically exam-ined bowelwall[66– 69]. Furthermore, bowel wall vascularity seems to be correlated with endoscopic activity [67, 69 – 71] and clinical activity (e. g., Harvey-Bradshaw index score of ≥ 4or Crohn’s disease activity index ≥ 150) [27, 33, 58, 68, 71 – 75] and to a lesser degree with biochemical activity (e. g., C-reactive pro-tein or fecal calprotectin) of CD [58]. Moreover, persistence of increased vascularity despite clinical remission after treatment may suggest an increased risk of relapse [74].


[9.] Semi-quantitative assessment of bowel wall vascularity using color Doppler techniques is useful to evaluate Crohn’s disease activity [LoE 2b, GoR B] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17

Contrast-enhanced US assessment of bowel wall in CD
Despite the capabilities of US color Doppler to suggest CD activ-ity, its accuracy in detecting slow-moving blood flow in small ves-sels and vascularity in deep-lying bowel wall segments is low. Con-trast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) overcomes these limitations, improving the detection of hypervascularity and perfusion, also in the deep-seated bowel wall and in the capillaries.
Assessing contrast-enhanced blood flow in the bowel wall is more complex [23]. Studies show considerable heterogeneity with regard to CEUS techniques and contrast parameters to assess bowel wall vascularity in CD [76 – 78]. The main parameters could be simply subdivided into qualitative, semi-quantitative and quan-titative. The main qualitative and semi-quantitative parameters include different patterns of contrast enhancement, such as varia-tion of layer enhancement of the bowel wall [79] and patterns of perfusion, such as submucosal enhancement and inward and out-ward transparietal enhancement [71]. Among the several quanti-tative parameters investigated, the relative peak enhancement and the area under the curve seem to be most reproducible, reli-able and widely used to discriminate disease activity and to assess the histological features of the bowel wall [25, 78, 80].

Several studies and meta-analyses have shown that CEUS has high accuracy in the detection of active CD using endoscopy or clinical index as the reference standard [18, 19]. CEUS also seems to provide relevant prognostic information regarding treatment efficacy in patients with CD. In fact, improvement of several perfusion parameters, such as peak contrast enhancement, rate of wash-in and wash-out and, in particular, the area under the time intensity curve of the intestinal wall, 4 – 6weeksafter starting anti-inflammatory treatment (anti-TNF-alpha), correlated with a favorable response [25, 80].
Furthermore, CEUS showed excellent accuracy for the diagno-sis of postoperative CD recurrence. In particular, the peak contrast enhancement > 46 % over baseline showed a 10 % increase in accu-racy compared with conventional parameters such as BWT >3 mm and the assessment of color Doppler flow [81]. Likewise, the pattern of enhancement showed a sensitivity and specificity of 94 % for identifying endoscopic recurrence compared with a modified endoscopic Rutgeerts score [71].

Several studies assessed the accuracy of CEUS for evaluating various aspects of disease activity. The endoscopic activity has been assessed by CEUS using parameters derived by the time enhancement intensity curves, such as maximum peak intensity or relative peak enhancement, showing a sensitivity of 68 – 100 %and a specificity of 73 – 96 % for discriminating endoscopically active from inactive disease [70, 82 – 85]. In contrast, the correla-tion between CEUS and clinical and biochemical activity of CD is more controversial [71, 79, 85 – 88].


[10.]  CEUS of the bowel may be used to estimate endoscopic activity in Crohn’s disease [LoE 1b, GoR A]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 11/16; A- 4/16; D+ 1/16

[11.]  CEUS methods and parameters for assessing Crohn’sdis-ease are heterogeneous and should be kept stable over time when monitoring disease activity [LoE 2b, GoR A] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/16

Extraintestinal features

Lymph nodes
Mesenteric loco-regional lymph nodes are a common finding in healthy subjects, particularly in children [89], and in CD patients. Enlarged inflammatory mesenteric lymph nodes related to CD are usually described at US as oval or elongated with lesser diameter >5 mm and seem to be correlated with young age, early disease, or disease with shorter duration, and with the presence of fistulae and abscesses [90 – 92]. However, enlarged mesenteric lymph nodes do not seem to be strongly correlated with clinical disease activity and also appear in other intestinal disorders [27, 90].


[12.]  Regional mesenteric lymphadenopathy is a common but non-specific sonographic finding in early Crohn’sdisease and can be detected by GIUS [LoE 3b, GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/17; A- 1/17; D+ 1/17

Mesenteric fat hypertrophy
Mesenteric fat hypertrophy or creeping fat is a common feature of active CD. Although it seems to be associated with transmural in-flammation, fibrosis, muscular hypertrophy and stricture, its role in the onset and development of CD is not fully understood [93]. Creeping fat appears on US as hyperechoic tissue or “mass effect” encircling the diseased bowel. It is found by US in approximately 40 – 50 % of CD patients with a reported sensitivity and specificity > 83 % compared to multi-detector CT scan [94 – 96]. However, this finding is associated with clinical and biochemical disease activity, and it may disappear or improve in patients who have responded to medical treatment [27, 96].


[13.] Mesenteric hypertrophy can be detected by GIUS as hyperechoic tissue or “mass effect wrapping” around the diseased bowel and reflects clinical and biochemical dis-ease activity [LoE 3b, GoR C]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/17; A- 1/17; I 1/17

Abdominal free fluid
A small amount of free fluid, close to the affected bowel seg-ments, is a common, easily detectable and reproducible US find-ing in CD patients, but its prevalence and significance have not been fully investigated [21]. However, it seems to be a nonspecific finding, as it can been found in most patients irrespective of their underlying disease [97].


[14.] Free fluid in the abdomen can be detected using GIUS

Appendiceal involvement
As CD at its onset may clinically mimic acute appendicitis, the sonographic recognition of these entities is important to avoid unnecessary laparotomies. Primary involvement of the appendix in CD is rare, sonographically indistinguishable from simple acute appendicitis. It is characterized by markedly thickened and hyperemic walls, frequently associated with a thickened terminal ileum and cecum [98 – 100].


[15.] Appendiceal involvement in Crohn’s disease may be observed by GIUS and is commonly seen in combination with involvement of the terminal ileum and cecum [LoE 4, GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

Complications in Crohn’s disease

The main abdominal complications of CD are stenoses, fistulae and abscesses. These are the main indications for surgical inter-vention. Surgery is a frequent treatment in the natural history of CD patients [101, 102].


Stenoses represent the more frequent abdominal complications and the main cause of surgical intervention (70 – 90 %) and their prevalence increases over the course of the disease [103, 104]. Several US diagnostic criteria for stenosis have been described [105]. However, the main ones are: thickened and stiff bowel wall, narrowing of the lumen (diameter less than 1 cm), proximal dilatation (> 25 – 30 mm) and hyperperistalsis of the prestenotic gut [106, 107].

The higher diagnostic accuracy of US is obtained when surgery is considered the reference standard. In a systematic review of lit-erature, US has demonstrated a sensitivity for the diagnosis of ste-nosis from 74 % to 100 %, with a specificity in the range of 89 % to 93 % [8, 10, 12, 106 – 110]. Irrespective of the gold standard used, X-ray or intraoperative findings, the ingestion of an oral contrast agent such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (500 – 800 ml) drunk approximately 30 minutes before the US examination [also called Small Intestine Contrast US (SICUS)] has been shown to improve the sensitivity of US for identifying patients with at least 1 stenosis (74 % vs. 89 – 98 %) and those with 2 or more strictures (55 % vs. 75 – 77 %) with an overall good specificity (> 93 %) [109, 111]. Moreover, there is a good correlation between the extent of small bowel strictures measured by means of US and X-ray, and between the extent of the disease measured at surgery [109, 112].
Stenoses in CD are often the result of a combination of fibrosis and inflammation, although they are usually classified as predo-minantly inflammatory or fibrotic. Patients with strictures with prominent inflammation can potentially be managed with medi-cal treatment, whereas patients with narrowed bowel segments and with prevalent fibrosis, in particular if associated with obstructive symptoms, frequently require endoscopic dilatation or surgery [113]. Despite the fact that this issue is much more complicated and likely also involves smooth muscle hyperplasia/hypertrophy that may be correlated with chronic inflammation [114], the US pattern of the bowel wall can help to differentiate between inflammatory and fibrotic stenosis. The hypoechoic pat-tern is more typical of inflammatory stenosis, while the stratified or nonhomogeneous echo pattern indicates fibrosis [24, 39]. Several studies have shown that the degree of vascularization and hyperemia on color Doppler and CEUS is correlated with the histologically proven degree of inflammation [24, 105, 115]. In particular, CEUS is useful for distinguishing inflammatory from fibrostenotic lesions in CD. Most studies showed that the contrast enhancement of the bowel wall of inflammatory stric-tures (using surgical pathological specimens as the reference standard) is significantly greater compared to that of fibrotic stric-tures [24, 82, 116 – 119].
Recent studies reported a significant correlation between the measurement of transabdominal bowel wall stiffness assessed by sonoelastography and the degree of bowel fibrosis at histology [118, 120 – 123].


[16.]  Stenoses can be visualized by GIUS as segments of bowel wall thickening with luminal narrowing and pre-stenotic dilatation [EL 2a, GoR A].
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; I 1/17

[17.]  Oral contrast agents may be applied to increase the accu-racy of GIUS to diagnose patients with Crohn’s stenoses, particularly those with multiple stenoses [EL 2a, GoR A]. Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17

[18.]  a. Loss of stratification, hyperemia on color Doppler US or CEUS of the bowel wall, at the level of the stricture, suggest its inflammatory nature.
b.  Stratification or hypovascularization of the bowel wall, at the level of the stricture, suggests a higher degree of fibrosis [EL 2a, GoR A].
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/16; A- 1/16; I 1/16

[19.]  GIUS with elastography may be applied to evaluate the stiffness of a Crohn´s stenosis [EL 2b, GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 11/15; A- 2/15; I 2/15

Intestinal fistulae

Fistulae, sinus tracts and fissures are hallmarks of CD and lead to peri-intestinal abscesses, loop adhesions and stricture formation. Extramural fissures originating from deep ulcerations of the intes-tinal wall are visualized as subtle hypoechoic irregularities of the bowel surface, in correspondence with hypoechoic segments of the bowel wall. Fissures result in the formation of sinus tracts and fistulae. Sinus tracts are linear extensions of inflammation that may have a blind end or finish in an inflammatory mesenteric mass [94, 124 – 128].
Abdominal fistulae in CD are classified as internal and external. The internal can be entero-enteric, entero-mesenteric or entero-vesical [129]. The US diagnostic criteria of sinus tracts and fistulae are similar and include: hypoechoic areas or tracts between ileal loops with or without internal gaseous artifacts; hypoechoic peri-intestinal tracts with or without gas within; hypoechoic peri-intes-tinal areas with a diameter < 2 cm [107 – 110, 129 – 133]. The sen-sitivity of US for the diagnosis of fistulizing lesions ranged from 67 % to 87 %, with a specificity in the range of 90 % to 100 % [8], similar to CT and MR. The latest consensus guidelines by the ECCO and ESGAR for imaging in IBD have recommended GIUS as one of the diagnostic procedures to assess perforating complica-tions [11].


[20.] Fistulae in Crohn’s disease can be identified by GIUS as hy-poechoic tracts with or without air bubbles [LoE 2b, GoR A] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

[21.] GIUS can be applied with high sensitivity and specificity, comparable to CT or MRI, for the detection of CD fistulas [LoE 1; GoR A]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/17; A- 3/17

Abdominal abscesses

In 12 – 30 % of CD patients, an abscess occurs as a result of a fistu-la or surgical intervention. The US appearance is characterized by: hypo-anechoic lesions containing fluid and gaseous artifacts; pos-terior enhancement; irregular margins sometimes within hyper-trophic mesentery [107 – 110, 129 – 132, 134].
The sensitivity of US for the diagnosis of abdominal abscesses ranges from 81 % to 100 %, with a specificity in the range of 92 %to 94 % [8], similar to CT and MR, although certain anatomic areas, such as the deep pelvis and left hypochondrium, are diffi-cult to assess by GIUS and lesions can be missed. Abscesses and inflammatory masses or phlegmons can have a similar appear-ance on conventional US. This limit can be overcome using CEUS [135]. CEUS can demonstrate diffusely increased enhancement in phlegmons, while abscesses enhance only in the peripheral zone, with an avascular central portion, due to the fluid collection. To minimize radiation exposure, US should be preferred over CT for the detection of complications [8, 12]. Particularly, it is useful to monitor CD patients under treatment with biologic agents, which are contraindicated in patients with intra-abdominal abscesses, but may be effective in those with phlegmons [136].


[22.]  Abscesses can be detected using GIUS as organized fluid collections that may contain bubbles of gas [LoE 2a, GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

[23.] CEUS is useful for distinguishing between phlegmons and abscesses [LoE 2a, GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

[24.] GIUS may be applied with high sensitivity and specificity to detect Crohn’s abscesses [LoE 2, GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17

Postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease

Despite advancement in medical therapy, surgery is still required in more than half of CD patients and reoperation in up to 60 % of these patients [137]. The identification of predictive factors of recurrence and ileo-colonoscopic assessment of postoperative recurrence (Rutgeerts score) within the first year after surgery are crucial to optimize therapeutic management [138].
Several studies and systematic reviews have assessed the role of bowel US in postoperative follow-up, showing that the detection of increased bowel wall thickening > 3 mm of the anastomosis or neo-terminal ileum is an accurate indicator for recurrence, with a sensi-tivity > 80 % and specificity > 88 % [8, 12]. In this regard, prospective studies have shown that the use of PEG solution (SICUS) [139 – 143] and color Doppler or CEUS [81, 144] can increase the sensitivity up to 90 – 98 %, albeit with a decrease in specificity. This is valid for US assessment performed 1 year after surgery. With shorter follow-up, e. g. 3 months, the sensitivity of US in assessing and predicting postoperative recurrence appears inaccurate [141, 145].
Moreover, both GIUS and SICUS, adopting different cut-off levels for bowel thickness (> 5 mm for conventional sonography and > 4 mm for SICUS), can suggest severe endoscopic postopera-tive recurrence and accordingly could replace endoscopy in the postsurgical follow-up [146]. In CD patients treated with conser-vative surgery (e. g. stricturoplastics or minimal bowel resec-tions), GIUS is useful to monitor the postoperative behavior of bowel wall thickness and provides prognostic information. US detection of unchanged or worsened wall thickness 6 months after surgery or the postoperative persistence of wall thickness > 6 mm is predictive of a high risk of recurrence [147, 148].


[25.]  Postoperative recurrence can be accurately detected using GIUS by assessing the thickness of ileo-colonic anastomosis or neo-terminal ileum (> 3 mm) 1 year after surgery [LoE 1b GoR A]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17

[26.] Doppler US and CEUS assessment of thickened neo-term-inal ileum and the use of oral contrast agents can improve the sensitivity of postoperative detection of recurrence [LoE 1b GoR A]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/17; A- 2/17; D+ 1/17

Sonographic scores in Crohn’s disease

The various US mural and extramural features of CD may have relevant prognostic implications and have been used to build sonographic indexes. The US detection of bowel wall thickness >7 mm has been shown to be an independent risk of surgery (OR = 19.5, 95 % CI: 5.362 – 71.065) [34]. The short-term risk of surgery has also been evaluated with a score that included weighted parameters such as: wall thickness (> 4.5 mm), wall echo pattern (“disrupted stratification”) and presence of fistulae/abscesses and stenoses. Although not validated, this score was able to correctly identify up to 84 % of patients requiring short-term surgery [40]. Following this trend, a numerical index, quan-titating small bowel damage as detected by SICUS in CD patients, has been developed more recently with the aim of converting qualitative sonographic images into a numerical index for CD (Sonographic Lesion Index for CD – SLIC). Also this index was able to identify patients with higher lesion indices who underwent surgery more frequently than those with lower indices after one-year follow-up [149], and can be used to monitor changes in transmural bowel damage during anti-TNF therapy for CD [150]. An attempt to develop an ultrasonographic index of inflammatory activity for CD was proposed on the basis of wall thickness and wall stratification of the gut, subdivided into eight segments. The results of this index showed a correlation (r2 = 0.62, P < 0.01) with endoscopic/radiological score, but, given its complexity and lack of validation, it has remained unused [38].


[27.]  Indexes and scores using GIUS may be a tool for pre-dicting the risk of surgery and quantifying bowel dam-age [LoR 4 GoR C]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/16; A- 2/16

Ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis, unlike CD, involves only the colonic mucosa starting from the rectum (proctitis) often ascending to the rest of the colon. Nowadays, colonoscopy is the method of choice and the reference standard in UC [151, 152]. Intestinal US is an accurate tool to detect and assess the extension of active UC and to define disease activity. The typical grayscale US finding in active UC is moderate thickening of the intestinal wall (usually below 9 mm), involving the mucosa and submucosa, sometimes with increased echogenicity of the submucosal layer, without involve-ment of the proper muscle layer or surrounding fat. Typical find-ings may be the irregular mucosal surface caused by gas bubbles entrapped among pseudopolyps and in deep ulcerations and the loss of haustration [153]. Because the lesions in UC are not trans-mural, the colonic wall stratification is usually preserved [154], although it may be disrupted in patients with severe activity. In particular, the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis relies in most stud-ies on the detection of bowel wall thickness > 4 mm in adults [153 – 156] and > 3 mm in children [157 – 159]. Intestinal US can be used to assess UC extension, but is more challenging for rectal involvement, where the sensitivity is approximately 15 %. For the remaining colon the sensitivity is higher than 70 %, i. e., up to 97 %for the sigmoid and descending colon [156].
Wall thickness correlates well with clinical activity [153, 158 –164], with biological tests like C-reactive protein values [155, 159, 163] and also with endoscopy findings [153, 155, 158, 163, 164]. Loss of bowel wall stratification (hypoechoic pattern) was asso-ciated with moderate (55 % of cases) and severe forms (100 % of cases) [165], while normal wall stratification was present in 87 %of mild cases in another study [166]. Increased vascularity asses-sed by Doppler US of the bowel wall (increased Doppler signals with low resistance) was also associated with both clinical and endoscopic activity of UC [158, 159, 166, 168]. Attempts have been made to establish an ultrasonic activity score. One of these, based on extension and degree of colonic wall thickness, showed that it is possible to discriminate severe and moderately severe attacks with a sensitivity of 90 % and a specificity of 96 % [160], but it was not validated due to a lack of large cohort studies.
Transabdominal US can also be used for the assessment of UC response to treatment by assessing wall thickness [160, 163, 169, 170], and vascularity changes by CEUS [171, 172]. Regarding response to treatment, published data are contradictory. One study concluded that color and power Doppler are useful [173], while another showed no correlation [172]. Furthermore, CEUS quantification can be used for noninvasive assessment of activity in UC [172, 174] and for treatment response [171, 172]. Strain elastography of the colonic wall may provide information that correlates with endoscopic and clinical disease activity [175].
Appendiceal involvement is seen in 15 % to 86 % of patients with UC and is more common in proctosigmoiditis, than in more exten-sive UC. It seems to be related to a better response to therapy and higher risk of pouchitis after ileo-colic anastomosis [152, 176].


[28.] GIUS can be used to estimate long segment thickening of the colonic wall, usually present in active UC [LoE 1b GoR A]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17
[29.] In active ulcerative colitis the echo-stratification that can be visualized using GIUS may be preserved, except in se-vere disease. The thickening involves the mucosa and sub-mucosal layer [LoE 1b GoR B]

Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 17/17
[30.] Increased Doppler signals in the thickened bowel wall that can be observed using GIUS should be interpreted as a sign of active inflammation [LoE 1b GoR B] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17
[31.] CEUS highlights the inflammatory hypervascularity of the bowel wall and it can be used to evaluate therapy re-sponse [LoE 2b GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/17; A-1/17; I 1/17
[32.] GIUS can be used to differentiate between UC and CD based on the location of the disease, degree of wall thick-ening, preserved stratification, lack of surrounding fat in-volvement or penetrating complications [LoE 4 GoR C]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 16/17; A- 1/17

Complications of ulcerative colitis

Ultrasound may detect extra-intestinal complications of UC (e. g., primary sclerosing cholangitis) [177], but findings of intestinal complications have not been validated in prospective studies. Toxic megacolon combines abnormal colonic dilatation (> 6 cm), thin colonic walls (< 2 mm) and fluid-filled bowel [178, 179]. Massive pseudopolyposis as well as cancer in IBD may show irregular thick-ening of the wall [180] or a pseudokidney sign. However, GIUS does not play a major role in diagnosing these complications. Portome-senteric vein thrombosis may be detected by color Doppler ima-ging and CEUS in up to 26 % of acute or quiescent IBD patients [76, 181, 182].


[33.] Intestinal complications of UC, like toxic megacolon, may show some specific features that can be observed by GIUS [LoE 4 GoR B]
Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 15/16; D- 1/16

Differential diagnosis among inflammatory colitides

GIUS has limited value compared to histology in differentiating various enterocolitides. However, GIUS assessment of the area of gut involvement and of mural and transmural changes of the bowel and vascularity may help to differentiate CD from UC [36, 156, 183 – 186], and other infectious (e. g. tuberculous, bacterial, pseudomembranous and parasitic) [187 – 191], vascular and inflammatory enterocolitides (e. g. ischemic, NSAID, Henoch-Schönlein purpura) [192 – 196] and to suggest the nature of lesions in most patients [166, 197 – 199].


[34.] GIUS detection of specific features of the bowel, mainly the site of bowel involvement and peri-intestinal signs, can be used to differentiate Crohn’s disease from ulcera-tive colitis and other intestinal conditions [LoE 4 GoR C] Consensus levels of agreement: A+ 14/16; A- 1/16; I 1/16

Conflict of Interest

These authors declare a possible conflicts of interest: GM: Abbvie, Jans-sen, Alfa-Sigma Novartis, Allergan, THD, Takeda. KN: AbbVie, Ferring, Meda AS. IS: GE, Philips, Siemens, Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb. APH: Toshiba. CFD: Bracco, Hitachi, GE, Mindray, Supersonic, Pentax, Covi-dien, Boston Scientific, AbbVie, MSD, Falk Foundation, Novartis, Roche, Siemens, Olympus, Fuji. OHG: Abbvie, Bracco, Almirall, GE, Takeda AS, Meda AS, Ferring, Allergan, Samsung. CS: Bracco. DN Falk Foundation. AS, AH, TR, NP, KD, TH, LR, EC, CM no COI.


The authors thank Prof. Giovanni Casazza, MD, PhD, from Epidemiology and Biostatistic Unit – Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, “L.Sacco” University Hospital – Milan.


  1. Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM et al. Increasing incidence and preval-ence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 46 – 54.e42

  2. Schoepfer AM, Dehlavi MA, Fournier N et al. Diagnostic delay in Crohn’s disease is associated with a complicated disease course and increased operation rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1744 – 53

  3. Ott C, Obermeier F, Thieler S et al. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in a rural region of Southern Germany: a prospective population-based study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 20: 917 – 23

  4. Annese V, Daperno M, Rutter MD. European Crohn’s and Colitis Organi-sation European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflamma-tory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7: 982 – 1018

  5. Wilkens R, Novak KL, Lebeuf-Taylor E et al. Impact of Intestinal Ultra-sound on Classification and Management of Crohn’s Disease Patients with Inconclusive Colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 2016: doi:8745972

  6. Gomollón F, Dignass A, Annese V et al. 3rd European Evidence-based Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Crohn’s Disease 2016: Part 1: Diagnosis and Medical Management. J Crohns Colitis 2017; 11: 3 – 25

  7. Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Bennink RJ et al. Inflammatory bowel disease diag-nosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Radiology 2008; 247: 64 – 79

  8. Panés J, Bouzas R, Chaparro M et al. Systematic review: the use of ultra-sonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, assessment of activity and abdominal complications of Crohn’s disease. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34: 125 – 145

  9. Puylaert CA, Tielbeek JA, Bipat S et al. Grading of Crohn’sdiseaseactivity using CT, MRI, US and scintigraphy: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 3295 – 313

  10. Greenup AJ, Bressler B, Rosenfeld G. Medical Imaging in Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease-Computer Tomography Enterography, Magnetic Reso-nance Enterography, and Ultrasound: “Which One Is the Best for What?” Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016; 22: 1246 – 61

  11. Panes J, Bouhnik Y, Reinisch W et al. Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based con, sensus guidelines. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7: 556 – 585

  12. Calabrese E, Maaser C, Zorzi F et al. Bowel Ultrasonography in the Man-agement of Crohn’s Disease. A Review with Recommendations of an In-ternational Panel of Experts. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016; 22: 1168 – 83

  13. Asthana AK, Friedman AB, Maconi G et al. Failure of gastroenterologists to apply intestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease in the Asia-Pacific: a need for action. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 446 – 452

  14. Atkinson NS, Bryant RV, Dong Y et al. WFUMB Position Paper. Learning Gastrointestinal Ultrasound: Theory and Practice. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2732 – 42

  15. Fraquelli M, Colli A, Casazza G et al. Role of US in detection of Crohn disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 2005; 236: 95 – 101

  16. Dong J, Wang H, Zhao J et al. Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in detecting active Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 26 – 33

  17. Zhu C, Ma X, Xue L, Xu J, Li Q, Wang Y, Zhang J. Small intestine contrast ultrasonography for the detection and assessment of Crohn disease:
    A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (31): e4235,

  18. Serafin Z, Białecki M, Białecka A et al. Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Detection of Crohn’s Disease Activity: Systematic Review and Meta-a-nalysis. J Crohns Colitis 2016; 10: 354 – 62

  19. Ma X, Li Y, Jia H et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of patients suspected of having active Crohn’sdisease: meta-analysis. Ul-trasound Med Biol 2015; 41: 659 – 68

  20. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P et al. The Oxford Levels of Evidence
    2.    OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, Oxford Centre for Eviden-ceBased Medicine. Available from: 2009 aspx?o=5653

  21. Fraquelli M, Sarno A, Girelli C et al. Reproducibility of bowel ultrasono-graphy in the evaluation of Crohn’s disease. Dig Liver Dis 2008; 40: 860 –866

  22. Nylund K, Hausken T, Odegaard S et al. Gastrointestinal wall thickness measured with transabdominal ultrasonography and its relationship to demographic factors in healthy subjects. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: E225 – E232

  23. Nylund K, Maconi G, Hollerweger A et al. EFSUMB Recommendations and Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound – Part 1: Examination Techniques and Normal Findings (Short version). Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: 273 – 284

  24. Nylund K, Jirik R, Mezl M et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound comparison between inflammatory and fibrotic lesions in patients with Crohn’s disease. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013; 39: 1197 – 1206

  25. Saevik F, Nylund K, Hausken T et al. Bowel perfusion measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound predicts treatment outcome in patients with Crohn’s disease. Inflammatory bowel diseases 2014; 20: 2029 – 2037

  26. Ellrichmann M, Wietzke-Braun P, Dhar S et al. Endoscopic ultrasound of the colon for the differentiation of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in comparison with healthy controls. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2014; 39: 823 – 833

  27. Kucharzik T, Wittig BM, Helwig U et al. Use of Intestinal Ultrasound
    to Monitor Crohn’s Disease Activity. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; pii: S1542 – S3565 (16)31058–8

  28. Maconi G, Parente F, Bollani S et al. Abdominal ultrasound in the assess-ment of extent and activity of Crohn’s disease: clinical significance and implication of bowel wall thickening. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1604 – 1609

  29. Mayer D, Reinshagen M, Mason RA et al. Sonographic measurement of thickened bowel wall segments as a quantitative parameter for activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Z Gastroenterol 2000; 38: 295 – 300

  30. Hirche TO, Russler J, Schroder O et al. The value of routinely performed ultrasonography in patients with Crohn disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37: 1178 – 1183

  31. Castiglione F, Testa A, Rea M et al. Transmural healing evaluated by bowel sonography in patients with Crohn’s disease on maintenance treatment with biologics. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013; 19: 1928 – 1934

  32. Civitelli F, Nuti F, Oliva S et al. Looking Beyond Mucosal Healing: Effect of Biologic Therapy on Transmural Healing in Pediatric Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016; 22: 2418 – 2424

  33. Ripollés T, Paredes JM, Martínez-Pérez MJ et al. Ultrasonographic Changes at 12 Weeks of Anti-TNF Drugs Predict 1-year Sonographic Response and Clinical Outcome in Crohn’s Disease: A Multicenter Study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016; 22: 2465 – 2473

  34. Castiglione F, de Sio I, Cozzolino A et al. Bowel wall thickness at abdom-inal ultrasound and the one-year-risk of surgery in patients with Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1977 – 1983

  35. Limberg B. Sonographic features of colonic Crohn’s disease: comparison of in vivo and in vitro studies. J Clini Ultrasound 1990; 18: 161 – 166

  36. Limberg B, Osswald B. Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease by hydrocolonic sonography. Am J Gastroen-terol 1994; 89: 1051 – 1057

  37. Bozkurt T, Rommel T, Stabenow-Lohbauer U et al. Sonographic bowel wall morphology correlates with clinical and endoscopic activity in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Eur J Ultrasound 1996; 4: 27 – 33

  38. Futagami Y, Haruma K, Hata J et al. Development and validation of an ultrasonographic activity index of Crohn’s disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999; 11: 1007 – 1012

  39. Maconi G, Carsana L, Fociani P et al. Small bowel stenosis in Crohn’s disease: clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic evaluation of histo-logical features. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 749 – 756

  40. Rigazio C, Ercole E, Laudi C et al. Abdominal bowel ultrasound can predict the risk of surgery in Crohn’s disease: proposal of an ultrasonographic score. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 585 – 593

  41. Kunihiro K, Hata J, Manabe N et al. Predicting the need for surgery in Crohn’s disease with contrast harmonic ultrasound. Scand J Gastroen-terol 2007; 42: 577 – 585

  42. Rosenbaum DG, Conrad MA, Biko DM et al. Ultrasound and MRI predic-tors of surgical bowel resection in pediatric Crohn disease. Pediatr Radiol 2017; 47: 55 – 64

  43. Hata J, Haruma K, Yamanaka H et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the bowel wall in inflammatory bowel disease: comparison of in vivo and in vitro studies. Abdom Imaging 1994; 19: 395 – 399

  44. Kunihiro K, Hata J, Haruma K et al. Sonographic detection of longitudinal ulcers in Crohn disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 322 – 326

  45. Nylund K, Leh S, Immervoll H et al. Crohn’s disease: Comparison of in vitro ultrasonographic images and histology. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 719 – 726

  46. Bolondi L, Gaiani S, Brignola C et al. Changes in splanchnic hemody-namics in inflammatory bowel disease. Non-invasive assessment
    by Doppler ultrasound flowmetry. . Scand J Gastroenterol 1992; 27: 501 – 507

  47. Erden A, Cumhur T, Olcer T. Superior mesenteric artery Doppler wave-form changes in response to inflammation of the ileocecal region. Abdom Imaging 1997; 22: 483 – 486

  48. Giovagnorio F, Diacinti D, Vernia P. Doppler sonography of the super-ior mesenteric artery in Crohn’s disease. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 123 – 126

  49. Mirk P, Palazzoni G, Gimondo P. Doppler sonography of hemodynamic changes of the inferior mesenteric artery in inflammatory bowel disease: preliminary data. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 381 – 387

  50. Yekeler E, Danalioglu A, Movasseghi B et al. Crohn disease activity eval-uated by doppler ultrasonography of the superior mesenteric artery and the affected small-bowel segments. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 59 – 65

  51. Sjekavica I, Barbaric-Babic V, Krznaric Z et al. Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity by Doppler ultrasound of superior mesenteric artery and mural arteries in thickened bowel wall: Cross-sectional study. Croatian Med J 2007; 48: 822 – 830

  52. Karoui S, Nouira K, Serghini M et al. Assessment of activity of Crohn’s disease by Doppler sonography of superior mesenteric artery flow. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4: 334 – 340

  53. Maconi G, Imbesi V, Bianchi PorroG. Doppler ultrasound measurement of intestinal blood flow in inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastro-enterol 1996; 31: 590 – 593

  54. Maconi G, Parente F, Bollani S et al. Factors affecting splanchnic hae-modynamics in Crohn’s disease: a prospective controlled study using Doppler ultrasound. Gut 1998; 43: 645 – 650

  55. van Oostayen JA, Wasser MN, Griffioen G et al. Diagnosis of Crohn’s ilei-tis and monitoring of disease activity: value of Doppler ultrasound of superior mesenteric artery flow. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 88 – 91

  56. Byrne MF, Farrell MA, Abass S et al. Assessment of Crohn’sdiseaseactiv-ity by Doppler sonography of the superior mesenteric artery, clinical evaluation and the Crohn’s disease activity index: a prospective study. Clin58 Radiol 2001; 56: 973 – 978

  57. Ludwig D, Wiener S, Bruning A et al. Mesenteric blood flow is related to disease activity and risk of relapse in Crohn’s disease: a prospective follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2942 – 2950

  58. Thomson M, Rao P, Berger L et al. Graded compression and power Dop-pler ultrasonography versus endoscopy to assess paediatric Crohn dis-ease activity pre- and posttreatment. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012; 54: 404 – 408

  59. Dietrich CF, Jedrzejczyk M, Ignee A. Sonographic assessment of splanchnic arteries and the bowel wall. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 202 – 212

  60. Ignee A, Boerner N, Bruening A et al. Duplex sonography of the mesen-teric vessels – a critical evaluation of inter observer variability. Z Gastro-enterol 2016; 54: 304 – 311

  61. Sacerdoti D, Gaiani S, Buonamico P et al. Interobserver and interequip-ment variability of hepatic, splenic, and renal arterial Doppler resistance indices in normal subjects and patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol 1997; 27: 986 – 992

  62. Zoli M, Merkel C, Sabbà C et al. Interobserver and inter-equipment variability of echo-Doppler sonographic evaluation of the superior mesenteric artery. J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15: 99 – 106

  63. Sabbà C, Merkel C, Zoli M et al. Interobserver and interequipment varia-bility of echo-Doppler examination of the portal vein: effect of a coop-erative training program. Hepatology 1995; 21: 428 – 433

  64. Limberg B. Diagnosis of chronic inflammatory bowel disease by ultraso-nography. Z Gastroenterol 1999; 37: 495 – 508

  65. Jenssen C, Tuma J, Moller K et al. Ultrasound artifacts and their diagnos-tic significance in internal medicine and gastroenterology – part 2: color and spectral Doppler artifacts. Z Gastroenterol 2016; 54: 569 – 578

  66. Sasaki T, Kunisaki R, Kinoshita H et al. Doppler ultrasound findings cor-relate with tissue vascularity and inflammation in surgical pathology specimens from patients with small intestinal Crohn’s disease. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 363

  67. Sasaki T, Kunisaki R, Kinoshita H et al. Use of color Doppler ultrasono-graphy for evaluating vascularity of small intestinal lesions in Crohn’s disease: correlation with endoscopic and surgical macroscopic findings. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 295 – 301

  68. Drews BH, Barth TF, Hänle MM et al. Comparison of sonographically measured bowel wall vascularity, histology, and disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1379 – 1386

  69. Epifanio M, Baldisserotto M, Spolidoro JV et al. Grey-scale and colour Doppler sonography in the evaluation of children with suspected bowel inflammation: correlation with colonoscopy and histological findings. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 968 – 978

  70. Ripollés T, Martínez MJ, Paredes JM et al. Crohn disease: correlation of findings at contrast-enhanced US with severity at endoscopy. Radiology 2009; 253: 241 – 248

  71. Migaleddu V, Scanu AM, Quaia E et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasono-graphic evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 43 – 52

  72. Carnevale MaffèG, Brunetti L, Formagnana P et al. Ultrasonographic findings in Crohn’s disease. J Ultrasound 2014; 18: 37 – 49

  73. Paredes JM, Ripollés T, Cortés X et al. Abdominal sonographic changes after antibody to tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) alpha therapy in Crohn’s Disease. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 404 – 410

  74. Ripollés T, Martínez MJ, Barrachina MM. Crohn’s disease and color Dop-pler sonography: response to treatment and its relationship with long-term prognosis. J Clin Ultrasound 2008; 36: 267 – 272

  75. Spalinger J, Patriquin H, Miron MC et al. Doppler US in patients with Crohn disease: vessel density in the diseased bowel reflects disease activity. Radiology 2000; 217: 787 – 791

  76. Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultra-sound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 33 – 5

  77. Cheng W, Gao X, Wang W et al. Preliminary Analysis of Clinical Situations Involved in Quantification of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in

  78. Zink F, Kratzer W, Schmidt S et al. Comparison of Two High-End Ultra-sound Systems for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Quantification of Mural Microvascularity in Crohn’s Disease. Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: 74 – 81

  79. Serra C, Menozzi G, Labate AM et al. Ultrasound assessment of vasculari-zation of the thickened terminal ileum wall in Crohn’s disease patients using a low-mechanical index real-time scanning technique with a second generation ultrasound contrast agent. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62: 114 – 121

  80. Quaia E, Sozzi M, Angileri R et al. Time-Intensity Curves Obtained after Microbubble Injection Can Be Used to Differentiate Responders from Nonresponders among Patients with Clinically Active Crohn Disease after 6 Weeks of Pharmacologic Treatment. Radiology 2016; 281: 606 – 616

  81. Paredes JM, Ripollés T, Cortés X et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonogra-phy: usefulness in the assessment of postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7: 192 – 201

  82. Ripolles T, Rausell N, Paredes JM et al. Effectiveness of contrast-en-hanced ultrasound for characterisation of intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease: a comparison with surgical histopathology analysis.
    J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7: 120 – 128

  83. Moreno N, Ripolles T, Paredes JM et al. Usefulness of abdominal ultraso-nography in the analysis of endoscopic activity in patients with Crohn’s disease: changes following treatment with immunomodulators and/or anti-TNF antibodies. J Crohns Colitis 2014; 8: 1079 – 1087

  84. Horjus TalaburHorje CS, Bruijnen R, Roovers L et al. Contrast Enhanced Abdominal Ultrasound in the Assessment of Ileal Inflammation in Crohn’s Disease: A Comparison with MR Enterography. PloS one 2015; 10: e0136105 – 52

  85. De Franco A, Di Veronica A, Armuzzi A et al. Ileal Crohn disease: mural microvascularity quantified with contrast-enhanced US correlates with disease activity. Radiology 2012; 262: 680 – 688

  86. Girlich C, Schacherer D, Jung EM et al. Comparison between a clinical activity index (Harvey-Bradshaw-Index), laboratory inflammation mar-kers and quantitative assessment of bowel wall vascularization by con-trast-enhanced ultrasound in Crohn’s disease. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 1105 – 1109

  87. Girlich C, Jung EM, Huber E et al. Comparison between preoperative quantitative assessment of bowel wall vascularization by contrast-en-hanced ultrasound and operative macroscopic findings and results of histopathological scoring in Crohn’s disease. Ultraschall in Med 2011; 32: 154 – 159

  88. Wong DD, Forbes GM, Zelesco M et al. Crohn’s disease activity: Quanti-tative contrast-enhanced ultrasound assessment. Abdom Imaging 2012; 37: 369 – 376

  89. Dietrich CF, Zeuzem S, Caspary WF et al. Sonographische Lymphkno-tendarstellung im Abdomen bei gesunden Probanden. Ultraschall in Med 1998; 19: 265 – 269

  90. Maconi G, Di Sabatino A, Ardizzone S et al. Prevalence and clinical sig-nificance of sonographic detection of enlarged regional lymph nodes in Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005; 40: 1328 – 1333

  91. Dietrich CF, Hocke M, Jenssen C. Ultrasound for abdominal lymphade-nopathy. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2013; 138: 1001 – 1018

  92. Chiorean L, Barr RG, Braden B et al. Transcutaneous Ultrasound: Elasto-graphic Lymph Node Evaluation. Current Clinical Applications and Literature Review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 16 – 30

  93. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Chamaillard M, Gonzalez F et al. Mesenteric fat in Crohn’s disease: a pathogenetic hallmark or an innocent bystander? Gut 2007; 56: 577 – 583

  94. Sarrazin J, Wilson SR. Manifestations of Crohn disease at US. Radio-graphics 1996; 16: 499 – 520

  95. Gaitini D, Kreitenberg AJ, Fischer D et al. Color-coded duplex sonogra-phy compared to multidetector computed tomography for the diagno-sis of crohn disease relapse and complications. J Ultrasound Med 2011; 30: 1691 – 1699

  96. Maconi G, Greco S, Duca P et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of sonographic evidence of mesenteric fat alterations in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008; 14: 1555 – 1561

  97. Smereczynski A, Starzynska T, Kolaczyk K. Ultrasound of selected pathol-ogies of the small intestine. J Ultrasonography 2013; 13: 155 – 166

  98. Agha FP, Ghahremani GG, Panella JS et al. Appendicitis as the initial manifestation of Crohn’s disease: Radiologic features and prognosis. Am J Roentgenol 1987; 149: 515 – 518

  99. Puylaert JBCM, Van Der Werf SDJ, Ulrich C et al. Crohn disease of the ileocecal region: US visualization of the appendix. Radiology 1988; 166: 741 – 743

  100. Ripolles T, Martinez MJ, Morote V et al. Appendiceal involvement in Crohn’s disease: gray-scale sonography and color Doppler flow fea-tures. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 1071 – 1078

  101. Munkholm P, Langholz E, Davidsen M et al. Intestinal cancer risk and mortality in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 1716 – 1723

  102. Bernell O, Lapidus A, Hellers G. Risk factors for surgery and post-operative recurrence in Crohn’s disease. Ann Surg 2000; 231: 38 – 45

  103. Cosnes J, Cattan S, Blain A et al. Long-term evolution of disease beha-viour of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2002; 8: 244 – 250

  104. Cosnes J, Gower-Rousseau C, Seksik P et al. Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1785 – 1794

  105. Coelho R, Ribeiro H, Maconi G. Bowel Thickening in Crohn’s Disease: Fibrosis or Inflammation? Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging Tools. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017; 23: 23 – 34

  106. Calabrese E, Zorzi F, Onali S et al. Accuracy of small-intestine contrast ultrasonography, compared with computed tomography enteroclysis, in

  107. Castiglione F, Mainenti PP, De Palma GD et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: direct comparison of bowel sonography and magnetic resonance enterography. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013; 19: 991 – 998

  108. Onali S, Calabrese E, Petruzziello C et al. Small intestine contrast ultra-sonography vs computed tomography enteroclysis for assessing ileal Crohn’s disease. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 6088 – 6095

  109. Pallotta N, Vincoli G, Montesani C et al. Small intestine contrast ultra-sonography (SICUS) for the detection of small bowel complications in Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparative study versus intraoperative findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 74 – 84

  110. Kumar S, Hakim A, Alexakis C et al. Small intestinal contrast ultraso-nography for the detection of small bowel complications in Crohn’s disease: correlation with intraoperative findings and magnetic reso-nance enterography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 86 – 91–72

  111. Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M et al. Oral contrast enhanced bowel ul-trasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn’s disease. A prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, × ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy. Gut 2004; 53: 1652 – 1657

  112. Parente F, Maconi G, Bollani S et al. Bowel ultrasound in assessment of Crohn’s disease and detection of related small bowel strictures: a pro-spective comparative study versus × ray and intraoperative findings. Gut 2002; 50: 490 – 495

  113. Dignass A, Van AsscheG, Lindsay JO et al. European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Current man-agement. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4: 28 – 62

  114. Chen W, Lu CG, Lindsay JO et al. Smooth Muscle Hyperplasia/Hyper-trophy is the Most Prominent Histological Change in Crohn’sFibroste-nosing Bowel Strictures: A Semiquantitative Analysis by Using a Novel Histological Grading Scheme. J Crohns Colitis 2017; 11: 92 – 104

  115. Kratzer W, von Tirpitz C, Mason R et al. Contrast-enhanced power Dop-pler sonography of the intestinal wall in the differentiation of hypervas-cularized and hypovascularized intestinal obstructions in patients with Crohn’s disease. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 149 – 157

  116. Quaia E, de Paoli L, Stocca T et al. The value of small bowel wall con-trast enhancement after Sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble injec-tion to differentiate inflammatory from fibrotic strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012; 38: 1324 – 1332

  117. Schirin-Sokhan R, Winograd R, Tischendorf S et al. Assessment of inflammatory and fibrotic stenoses in patients with Crohn’s disease using contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computerized algorithm:
    a pilot study. Digestion 2011; 83: 263 – 268

  118. Lu C, Gui X, Chen W et al. Ultrasound Shear Wave and Contrast Enhancement: Effective Biomarkers in Crohn’s Disease Strictures. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2017; 23: 421 – 430

  119. Braden B, Ignee A, Hocke M et al. Diagnostic value and clinical utility of contrast enhanced ultrasound in intestinal diseases. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 667 – 674

  120. Baumgart DC, Müller HP, Grittner U et al. US-based Real-time Elasto-graphy for the Detection of Fibrotic Gut Tissue in Patients with Stric-turing Crohn Disease. Radiology 2015; 275: 889 – 899

  121. Fraquelli M, Branchi F, Cribiù FM et al. The Role of Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging in Predicting Ileal Fibrosis in Crohn’sDisease Patients. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21: 2605 – 2612

  122. Dillman JR, Stidham RW, Higgins PD et al. Ultrasound shear wave elas-tography helps discriminate low-grade from high-grade bowel wall fibrosis in ex vivo human intestinal specimens. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 2115 – 2123

  123. Sconfienza LM, Cavallaro F, Colombi V et al. In-vivo Axial-strain Sonoe-lastography Helps Distinguish Acutely-inflamed from Fibrotic Terminal Ileum Strictures in Patients with Crohn’s Disease: Preliminary Results. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 855 – 863

  124. Di Mizio R, Maconi G, Romano S et al. Small bowel Crohn disease: sonographic features. Abdom Imaging 2004; 29: 23 – 35

  125. Hollerweger A. Colonic diseases: the value of US examination. Eur J Radiol 2007; 64: 239 – 249

  126. Nylund K, Hausken T, Gilja OH. Ultrasound and inflammatory bowel disease. Ultrasound Q 2010; 26: 3 – 15

  127. Nylund K, Ødegaard S, Hausken T et al. Sonography of the small intes-tine. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 1319 – 1330

  128. Maconi G, Radice E, Greco S et al. Bowel ultrasound in Crohn’s disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 93 – 112

  129. Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Parente F et al. Contrast radiology, compu-ted tomography and ultrasonography in detecting internal fistulas and intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease: a prospective compara-tive study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1545 – 1555

  130. Maconi G, Bollani S, Bianchi PorroG. Ultrasonographic detection of intestinal complications in Crohn’s disease. Dig Dis Sci 1996; 41: 1643 – 1648

  131. Gasche C, Moser G, Turetschek K et al. Transabdominal bowel sono-graphy for the detection of intestinal complications in Crohn’s disease. Gut 1999; 44: 112 – 117

  132. Martínez MJ, Ripollés T, Paredes JM et al. Assessment of the extension and the inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease: comparison of ultra-sound and MRI. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 141 – 148

  133. Neye H, Ensberg D, Rauh P et al. Impact of high-resolution transab-dominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of complications of Crohn’sdis-ease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 690 – 695

  134. Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Russo A et al. The vascularity of internal fis-tulae in Crohn´s disease: an in vivo power Doppler ultrasonography

  135. Ripollés T, Martínez-Pérez MJ, Paredes JM et al. Contrast-enhanced ul-trasound in the differentiation between phlegmon and abscess in Crohn’s disease and other abdominal conditions. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82: e525 – e531

  136. Cullen G, Vaughn B, Ahmed A et al. Abdominal phlegmons in Crohn’s disease: outcomes following antitumor necrosis factor therapy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2012; 18: 691 – 696

  137. Buisson A, Chevaux JB, Allen PB et al. Review article: the natural history of postoperative Crohn’s disease recurrence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 625 – 633

  138. Gionchetti P, Dignass A, Danese S et al. ECCO. 3rd European Evidence-based Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Crohn’sDis-ease 2016: Part 2: Surgical Management and Special Situations.
    J Crohns Colitis 2017; 11: 135 – 149

  139. Onali S, Calabrese E, Petruzziello C et al. Endoscopic vs ultrasono-graphic findings related to Crohn’s disease recurrence: a prospective longitudinal study at 3 years. J Crohns Colitis 2010; 4: 319 – 328

  140. Calabrese E, Petruzziello C, Onali S et al. Severity of postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease: correlation between endoscopic and sonographic findings. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009; 15: 1635 – 1642

  141. Biancone L, Calabrese E, Petruzziello C et al. Wireless capsule endos-copy and small intestine contrast ultrasonography in recurrence of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007; 13: 1256 – 1265

  142. Pallotta N, Giovannone M, Pezzotti P et al. Ultrasonographic detection and assessment of the severity of Crohn’s disease recurrence after ileal resection. BMC Gastroenterol 2010; 10: 69

  143. Onali S, Calabrese E, Petruzziello C et al. Post-operative recurrence of Crohn’s disease: A prospective study at 5 years. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 489 – 494

  144. Paredes JM, Ripollés T, Cortés X et al. Non-invasive diagnosis and grading of postsurgical endoscopic recurrence in Crohn’s disease: usefulness of abdominal ultrasonography and (99m)Tc-hexamethyl-propylene amineoxime-labelled leucocyte scintigraphy. J Crohns Coli-tis 2010; 4: 537 – 545

  145. Orlando A, Modesto I, Castiglione F et al. The role of calprotectin
    in predicting endoscopic post-surgical recurrence in asymptomatic Crohn’s disease: a comparison with ultrasound. Eur Rev Med Pharma-col Sci 2006; 10: 17 – 22

  146. Castiglione F, Bucci L, Pesce G et al. Oral contrast-enhanced sonogra-phy for the diagnosis and grading of postsurgical recurrence of Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2008; 14: 1240 – 1245

  147. Parente F, Sampietro GM, Molteni M et al. Behaviour of the bowel wall during the first year after surgery is a strong predictor of symptomatic recurrence of Crohn’s disease: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 959 – 968

  148. Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Cristaldi M et al. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative behavior of bowel wall on risk of recurrence after conservative surgery in Crohn’s disease: a prospective study. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 345 – 352

  149. Calabrese E, Zorzi F, Zuzzi S et al. Development of a numerical index quantitating small bowel damage as detected by ultrasonography in Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 2012; 6: 852 – 860

  150. Zorzi F, Stasi E, Bevivino G et al. A sonographic lesion index for Crohn’s disease helps monitor changes in transmural bowel damage during therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 2071 – 2077

  151. Danese S, Fiocchi C. Ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1713 –1725

  152. Magro F, Gionchetti P, Eliakim R et al. Third European Evidence-Based Consensus on Diagnosis and Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Part 1: Definitions, diagnosis, extra-intestinal manifestations, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders. J Crohns Colitis 2017; 11: 649 – 670

  153. Bru C, Sans M, Defelitto MM et al. Hydrocolonic sonography for evalu-ating inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 99 – 105

  154. Strobel D, Goertz RS, Bernatik T. Diagnostics in inflammatory bowel disease: Ultrasound. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17: 3192 – 3197

  155. Antonelli E, Giuliano V, Casella G et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of colonic wall in moderate-severe ulcerative colitis: comparison with endoscopic findings. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 703 – 706

  156. Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M et al. Role of early ultrasound in detect-ing inflammatory intestinal disorders and identifying their anatomical location within the bowel. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 1009 –1016

  157. Bremner AR, Griffiths M, Argent JD et al. Sonographic evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective, blinded, comparative study. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 947 – 953

  158. Civitelli F, Di Nardo G, Oliva S et al. Ultrasonography of the colon in pediatric ulcerative colitis: a prospective, blind, comparative study with colonoscopy. J Pediatr 2014; 165: 78 – 84

  159. Ruess L, Blask AR, Bulas DI et al. Inflammatory bowel disease in chil-dren and young adults: correlation of sonographic and clinical param-eters during treatment. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 79 – 84

  160. Arienti V, Campieri M, Boriani L et al. Management of severe ulcerative colitis with the help of high resolution ultrasonography. Am J Gastro-enterol 1996; 91: 2163 – 2169

  161.  Schwerk WB, Beckh K, Raith M. A prospective evaluation of high reso-lution sonography in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel diasease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1992; 4: 173 – 182

  162. Worlicek H, Lutz H, Heyder N et al. Ultrasound findings in Crohn’sdis-ease and ulcerative colitis: a prospective study. J Clin Ultrasound 1987; 15: 153 – 163

  163. Maconi G, Ardizzone S, Parente F et al. Ultrasonography in the evalua-tion of extension, activity, and follow-up of ulcerative9 colitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999; 34: 1103 – 1107

  164. Parente F, Molteni M, Marino B et al. Are colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound useful for assessing response to short-term therapy and predicting disease outcome of moderate-to-severe forms of ulcerative colitis? a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1150 – 1157

  165. Haber HP, Busch A, Ziebach R et al. Ultrasonographic findings corre-spond to clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings in inflammatory bowel disease and other enterocolitides. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 375 – 382

  166. Dixit R, Chowdhury V, Kumar N. Hydrocolonic sonography in the eval-uation of colonic lesions. Abdom Imaging 1999; 24: 497 – 505

  167. Heyne R, Rickes S, Bock P et al. Non-invasive evaluation of activity in inflammatory bowel disease by power Doppler sonography. Z Gastro-enterol 2002; 40: 171 – 175

  168.  Bavil AS, Somi MH, Nemati M et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of bowel wall thickness and intramural blood flow in ulcerative colitis. ISRN Gastroenterol 2012; 2012: 370495

  169. Parente F, Molteni M, Marino B et al. Bowel ultrasound and mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis 2009; 27: 285 – 290

  170.  Yoshida A, Kobayashi K, Ueno F et al. Possible role of early transab-dominal ultrasound in patients undergoing cytapheresis for active ulcerative colitis. Intern Med 2011; 50: 11 – 15

  171. Socaciu M, Ciobanu L, Diaconu B et al. Non-Invasive Assessment of Inflammation and Treatment Response in Patients with Crohn’sDis-ease and Ulcerative Colitis using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography. Quantification. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2015; 24: 457 – 465

  172. Yamaguchi T, Yoshida S, Tanaka S et al. Predicting the clinical response to cytapheresis in steroid-refractory or dependent ulcerative colitis using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 831 – 837

  173. Rogoveanu I, Săftoiu A, Cazacu S et al. Color Doppler transabdominal ultrasonography for the assessment of the patients with inflammatory bowel disease during treatment. Rom J Gastroenterol 2003; 12: 277 –281

  174. Girlich C, Schacherer D, Jung EM et al. Comparison between quantita-tive assessment of bowel wall vascularization by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and results of histopathological scoring in ulcerative colitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 193 – 198

  175. Ishikawa D, Ando T, Watanabe O et al. Images of colonic real-time tissue sonoelastography correlate with those of colonoscopy and may predict response to therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis. BMC Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 29

  176. North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.; Colitis Foundation of America., Bousvaros A, Antonioli DA, Colletti RB, Dubinsky MC, Glickman JN, Gold BD, Griffiths AM, Jevon GP, Higuchi LM, Hyams JS, Kirschner BS, Kugathasan S, Baldas-sano RN, Russo PA. Differentiating ulcerative colitis from Crohn disease in children and young adults: report of a working group of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007; 44: 653 – 674

  177.  Hirche TO, Russler J, Braden B et al. Sonographic detection of perihe-patic lymphadenopathy is an indicator for primary sclerosing cholan-gitis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 2004; 19: 586 – 594

  178. Dietrich CF. Ultrasonography of the small and large intestine. In: Rose BD, (Ed) UpToDate. Wellesley MA, 2015

  179. Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Ardizzone S et al. Ultrasonographic detec-tion of toxic megacolon in inflammatory bowel diseases. Dig Dis Sci 2004; 49: 138 – 142

  180. de Barros N, Cerri GG, de Souza RochaM et al. Sonographic appearan-ces of conglomerated polyps (giant polyposis) in patients with Crohn’s disease. J Clin Ultrasound 2000; 28: 199 – 205

  181. Maconi G, Bolzacchini E, Dell’Era A et al. Portal vein thrombosis in inflammatory bowel diseases: a single-center case series. J Crohns Co-litis 2012; 6: 362 – 367

  182. Landman C, Nahon S, Cosnes J et al. Portomesenteric vein thrombosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013; 19: 582 – 589

  183. Ziech ML, Hummel TZ, Smets AM et al. Accuracy of abdominal ultra-sound and MRI for detection of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis in children. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44: 1370 – 1378

  184. Pera A, Cammarota T, Comino E et al. Ultrasonography in the detec-tion of Crohn’s disease and in the differential diagnosis of inflamma-tory bowel disease. Digestion 1988; 41: 180 – 184

  185. Hata J, Haruma K, Suenaga K et al. Ultrasonographic assessment of inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 1992; 87: 443 – 447

  186. Valette PJ, Rioux M, Pilleul F et al. Ultrasonography of chronic inflam-matory bowel diseases. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1859 – 1866

  187. Puylaert JB, Lalisang RI, van der Werf SD et al. Campylobacter ileocoli-tis mimicking acute appendicitis: differentiation with graded-com-pression US. Radiology 1988; 166: 737 – 740

  188.  Puylaert JB, Van der Zant FM, Mutsaers JA. Infectious ileocecitis caused by Yersinia, Campylobacter, and Salmonella: clinical, radiological and US findings. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 3 – 9

  189. Ros PR, Buetow PC, Pantograg-Brown L et al. Pseudomembranous colitis. Radiology 1996; 198: 1 – 9

  190. Kedar RP, Shah PP, Shivde RS et al. Sonographic findings in gastroin-testinal and peritoneal tuberculosis. Clin Radiol 1994; 49: 24 – 29

  191. Mathis G, Metzler J. Sonography in salmonella enterocolitis. Ultraschall in Med 1992; 13: 106 – 109

  192. Siegel MJ, Friedland JA, Hildebolt CF. Bowel wall thickening in children: differentiation with US. Radiology 1997; 203: 631 – 635

  193. Lim JH, Ko YT, Lee DH et al. Sonography of inflammatory bowel dis-ease: findings and value in differential diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163: 343 – 347

  194.  Dietrich CF, Lembcke B, Jenssen C et al. Intestinal ultrasound in rare gastrointestinal diseases, update, part 1. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35: 400 – 421

  195. Ripollés T, Simó L, Martínez-Pérez MJ et al. Sonographic findings in ischemic colitis in 58 patients. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 777 – 785[196]    Nuernberg D, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Current status of ultrasound in gastroenterology–bowel and upper gastrointestinal tract–part 2. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 355 – 366

  196. Aideyan UO, Smith WL. Inflammatory bowel disease in children. Radiol Clin North Am 1996; 34: 885 – 902

  197. O’Malley ME, Wilson SR. US of gastrointestinal tract abnormalities with CT correlation. Radiographics 2003; 23: 59 – 72

  198. Truong M, Atri M, Bret PM et al. Sonographic appearance of benign and malignant conditions of the colon. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 1451 –1455