AIM: To compare the adequacy and acceptability of Picolax and Citramag bowel cleansing agents for CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multidetector row CT colonography was performed in 124 subjects; 43 had been prepared with Picolax and 81 with Citramag. Datasets were assessed for retained fluid and solid residue, and overall adequacy of segmental visualization. Preparation acceptability was also assessed. RESULTS: There was significantly less retained fluid with Picolax. The odds of being in the next higher category for retained fluid when using Picolax were 0.33 (CI: 0.22-0.50, p<0.0001) when compared with Citramag, for all segments combined. However there was significantly more retained solid residue with Picolax. The odds of being in the next higher category for retained residue when using Picolax were 2.44 (CI: 1.41-4.24, p=0.002) when compared with Citramag, for all segments combined. There was no significant difference with respect to overall segmental visualization: the odds of a segment being adequately visualized when using Picolax were 1.52 (CI: 0.88-2.65, p=0.14) when compared with Citramag. There was no significant difference with respect to acceptability. CONCLUSION: Picolax results in a significantly drier colon than Citramag and associated with more retained residue. We found Picolax the more suitable preparation for CT colonography.
AIM: To compare the adequacy and acceptability of Picolax and Citramag bowel cleansing agents for CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multidetector row CT colonography was performed in 124 subjects; 43 had been prepared with Picolax and 81 with Citramag. Datasets were assessed for retained fluid and solid residue, and overall adequacy of segmental visualization. Preparation acceptability was also assessed. RESULTS: There was significantly less retained fluid with Picolax. The odds of being in the next higher category for retained fluid when using Picolax were 0.33 (CI: 0.22-0.50, p<0.0001) when compared with Citramag, for all segments combined. However there was significantly more retained solid residue with Picolax. The odds of being in the next higher category for retained residue when using Picolax were 2.44 (CI: 1.41-4.24, p=0.002) when compared with Citramag, for all segments combined. There was no significant difference with respect to overall segmental visualization: the odds of a segment being adequately visualized when using Picolax were 1.52 (CI: 0.88-2.65, p=0.14) when compared with Citramag. There was no significant difference with respect to acceptability. CONCLUSION:Picolax results in a significantly drier colon than Citramag and associated with more retained residue. We found Picolax the more suitable preparation for CT colonography.
Authors: Jamshid Dehmeshki; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Mary E Roddie; Justine McQuillan; Lesley Honeyfield; Hamdan Amin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexander W Keedy; Judy Yee; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Luis A Landeras; Janak N Shah; Kenneth R McQuaid; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patrick Mc Laughlin; Joseph Eustace; Sean Mc Sweeney; Sebastian Mc Williams; Kevin O'Regan; Michael O'Connor; Denis Kelly; Michael M Maher Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Andrew Slater; David N Burling; Emily Tam; Rebecca Greenhalgh; Louise Gartner; Julia Scarth; Robert Pearce; Paul Bassett; Steve Halligan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Patrick D McLaughlin; Kevin P Murphy; Lee Crush; Owen J O'Connor; Joseph P Coyle; Cressida R Brennan; Attiya Suhail; Denis Kelly; Michael M Maher Journal: Radiol Res Pract Date: 2013-12-18