BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Precondition for establishment of magnetic resonance colonography (MRCG) as a diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer is not only high diagnostic accuracy but also a good acceptance amongst patients. The aim of this study was to compare post-examination appraisal of patients for MRCG to that of bowel preparation and conventional colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 88 patients (24 women, 64 men, mean age 67 +- 17,3 years) were interviewed by a standardized questionnaire regarding pain/discomfort (scale from 1 to 10), overall assessment of difficulties and preference for future tests. After bowel cleansing, MRCG and conventional colonoscopy were performed on the same day. Bowel cleansing consisted of drinking about 5 liters of a polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution. For MRCG the colon was filled with ca. 2000 ml of tap water. Imaging was performed with a 1.5T MR scanner in the prone position. RESULTS: Most unpleasant for the patients was the preceding bowel preparation (70%), followed by colonoscopy (14%) and MRCG (8%). The preferred method was MRCG (58%) followed by colonoscopy (20,5%). The most unpleasant symptoms named by patients were the amount of oral electrolyte solution that had to be drunk (34%), abdominal pressure (25%), nausea (24%) because of bowel preparation, body positioning (25%) and rectal tube (13%) during MRCG, abdominal pressure (19%) and pain (18%) during colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Patients' acceptance of MRCG indicates that it has a potential role as an additional diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Precondition for establishment of magnetic resonance colonography (MRCG) as a diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer is not only high diagnostic accuracy but also a good acceptance amongst patients. The aim of this study was to compare post-examination appraisal of patients for MRCG to that of bowel preparation and conventional colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 88 patients (24 women, 64 men, mean age 67 +- 17,3 years) were interviewed by a standardized questionnaire regarding pain/discomfort (scale from 1 to 10), overall assessment of difficulties and preference for future tests. After bowel cleansing, MRCG and conventional colonoscopy were performed on the same day. Bowel cleansing consisted of drinking about 5 liters of a polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution. For MRCG the colon was filled with ca. 2000 ml of tapwater. Imaging was performed with a 1.5T MR scanner in the prone position. RESULTS: Most unpleasant for the patients was the preceding bowel preparation (70%), followed by colonoscopy (14%) and MRCG (8%). The preferred method was MRCG (58%) followed by colonoscopy (20,5%). The most unpleasant symptoms named by patients were the amount of oral electrolyte solution that had to be drunk (34%), abdominal pressure (25%), nausea (24%) because of bowel preparation, body positioning (25%) and rectal tube (13%) during MRCG, abdominal pressure (19%) and pain (18%) during colonoscopy. CONCLUSION:Patients' acceptance of MRCG indicates that it has a potential role as an additional diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer.