BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to determine the usefulness of a virtual computed tomography colon dissection visualization technique for the detection of polypoid lesions in comparison with conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis and optical colonoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-three patients were evaluated with optical colonoscopy and computed tomography colonoscopy using 16-row MDCT on the same day. CT images were analyzed by the colon dissection workup with unfolded haustra visualization and also using the conventional virtual colonoscopy technique (axial images and endoluminal views). The CT analysis was performed by an experienced radiologist using both viewing methods in a randomized order and blinded to optical colonoscopy results. RESULTS: Optical colonoscopy revealed 35 colonic lesions; 15 < 5 mm, 18 between 5-9 mm and 2 > 9 mm. For conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis the overall sensitivity was 86.67%; for the colon dissection visualization technique, the overall sensitivity was 82.86%. The average reading time for conventional virtual colonoscopy was 15 +/- 3 vs. 8 +/- 2 min for the colon dissection visualization technique. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that there is a significant reduction in the reading time using the colon dissection visualization technique without detriment to the detection rate, that is, competitive to conventional virtual colonoscopy interpretation results.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to determine the usefulness of a virtual computed tomography colon dissection visualization technique for the detection of polypoid lesions in comparison with conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis and optical colonoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-three patients were evaluated with optical colonoscopy and computed tomography colonoscopy using 16-row MDCT on the same day. CT images were analyzed by the colon dissection workup with unfolded haustra visualization and also using the conventional virtual colonoscopy technique (axial images and endoluminal views). The CT analysis was performed by an experienced radiologist using both viewing methods in a randomized order and blinded to optical colonoscopy results. RESULTS: Optical colonoscopy revealed 35 colonic lesions; 15 < 5 mm, 18 between 5-9 mm and 2 > 9 mm. For conventional virtual colonoscopy analysis the overall sensitivity was 86.67%; for the colon dissection visualization technique, the overall sensitivity was 82.86%. The average reading time for conventional virtual colonoscopy was 15 +/- 3 vs. 8 +/- 2 min for the colon dissection visualization technique. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that there is a significant reduction in the reading time using the colon dissection visualization technique without detriment to the detection rate, that is, competitive to conventional virtual colonoscopy interpretation results.
Authors: Seung Soo Lee; Seong Ho Park; Jin Kook Kim; Namkug Kim; Jeongjin Lee; Beom Jin Park; Young Jun Kim; Min Woo Lee; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Valeria A Fisichella; Magnus Båth; Ase Allansdotter Johnsson; Fredrik Jäderling; Tommy Bergsten; Ulf Persson; Kristin Mellingen; Mikael Hellström Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315