Ileocolonoscopy is usually used in Crohn's disease to check flare-up of the disease.Yet, entero-MRI shows more - like the bowel wall and nearby areas - which mightspot inflammation missed during scopes. Our aim is to study the performance ofentero-MRI compared to ileocolonoscopy in assessing disease complications.

We conducted a retrospective descriptive study including 37 patients havingconfirmed Crohn's;s disease. Patients done both an entero-MRI and a colonoscopy.thetime between the two explorations did not exceed one month.For every test, we notedif strictures, ulcers, or fistulas showed up. After that, we checked how accurate eachmethod was - also how closely their results matched.

37 patients were included, with an average age of 39,1±11,77 years. The sex ratioM/F was equal to 2. The disease location was ileal(L1) in 3 patients (14.3%),colonic(L2) in 1 patient (4.7%), and ileo-colic (L3) in 17 patients (81%).An inflammatoryphenotype (B1) was observed in 7 patients (33.3%), a stenosing phenotype (B2) in 13patients (61.9%) and a fistulizing/penetrating phenotype in 7 patients (33.3%).Comparison of endoscopic and MRI data revealed that these two techniques werenearly equivalent in detecting deep gastrointestinal ulcers (p=0.100). Endoscopy hasallowed the detection of more superficial ulcerations than enterographyMRI(0.04).However,entero-MRI was more efficient than endoscopy in detectingstrictures, with a statistically significant difference (p=0.001).Also, MRI appears to besuperior to endoscopy in detecting deep fistulas (p=0.013).

In our study, entero MRI was superior to endoscopy in detecting stricture andabdominal fistulas. Ileocolonoscopy was more effective for detecting superficialulcerations.These two investigations are complementary in order to obtain a completeassessment of the lesions, allowing for optimal management of patients with Crohn'sdisease.