PURPOSE: To compare reduced colonic cleansing based on dietary fecal tagging (FT) with standard (non-FT) colonic cleansing with regard to patient acceptance, sensitivity, and specificity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 50 patients (FT group), FT was performed by means of diet, magnesium citrate, and a barium suspension. In another 50 patients (non-FT group), preparation was based on polyethylene glycol administration. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy after computed tomographic (CT) colonography. Sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection were calculated by using conventional colonography as the reference standard. At CT colonography, fecal residue was evaluated. Patients were interviewed to determine discomfort, side effects, sleep quality, final opinion on examination comfort, and whether they would be reluctant to undergo the same examination again. RESULTS: FT left more fecal residue but improved differentiation from polyps (FT specificity, 88% [30 of 34 patients]; non-FT, 77% [23 of 30 patients]). Sensitivities were comparable: FT, 88% (14 of 16 patients); non-FT, 85% (17 of 20 patients). FT significantly reduced discomfort, side effects, and sleep disturbance, and resulted in an improved final opinion of how comfortable the examination was (P <.05). Although FT improved patient willingness to repeat the examination, this improvement was not statistically significant (P >.05). CONCLUSION: FT offers the patient a well-tolerated preparation and improves specificity, with improved differentiation of polyps from residual stool. Copyright RSNA, 2002
PURPOSE: To compare reduced colonic cleansing based on dietary fecal tagging (FT) with standard (non-FT) colonic cleansing with regard to patient acceptance, sensitivity, and specificity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 50 patients (FT group), FT was performed by means of diet, magnesium citrate, and a barium suspension. In another 50 patients (non-FT group), preparation was based on polyethylene glycol administration. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy after computed tomographic (CT) colonography. Sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection were calculated by using conventional colonography as the reference standard. At CT colonography, fecal residue was evaluated. Patients were interviewed to determine discomfort, side effects, sleep quality, final opinion on examination comfort, and whether they would be reluctant to undergo the same examination again. RESULTS:FT left more fecal residue but improved differentiation from polyps (FT specificity, 88% [30 of 34 patients]; non-FT, 77% [23 of 30 patients]). Sensitivities were comparable: FT, 88% (14 of 16 patients); non-FT, 85% (17 of 20 patients). FT significantly reduced discomfort, side effects, and sleep disturbance, and resulted in an improved final opinion of how comfortable the examination was (P <.05). Although FT improved patient willingness to repeat the examination, this improvement was not statistically significant (P >.05). CONCLUSION:FT offers the patient a well-tolerated preparation and improves specificity, with improved differentiation of polyps from residual stool. Copyright RSNA, 2002
Authors: Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Rogier E van Gelder; Jasper Florie; C Yung Nio; Sebastiaan Jensch; Steven W de Jager; Frans M Vos; Henk W Venema; Joep F Bartelsman; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Johan S Laméris; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 5.315