Literature DB >> 18183403

Gastrointestinal tract labeling for MDCT of abdomen: comparison of low density barium and low density barium in combination with water.

Kavita Gulati1, Zarine K Shah, Nisha Sainani, Raul Uppot, Dushyant V Sahani.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the quality of stomach and small bowel marking/labeling using 1,350 ml of low-density barium alone (VoLumen) with 900 ml of low-density barium and 450 ml of water for 16-MDCT scans of the abdomen and pelvis and assess cost benefits with the two protocols. In this IRB approved study, 80 consecutive patients scheduled for routine CECT (contrast-enhanced CT) of the abdomen-pelvis were studied. Patients were randomized into two groups and were administered either 1,350 ml of VoLumen (two bottles at 20-min intervals, one half bottle at 50 min and the last half on the table) or 900 ml of VoLumen (two bottles at 20-min intervals and 450 ml water on the table). Portal venous phase scanning (detector collimation=0.625 mm, speed=18.75 mm, thickness=5 mm) was subsequently performed. Images were reconstructed in axial and coronal plane at the CT console. Two blinded readers used a pre-designed template to assess distension and wall characteristics of the stomach and small bowel on a 5-point scale. Median scores with the two protocols were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The stomach and small bowel labeling was rated fair to optimal in all patients and did not differ significantly in the two protocols. The mean scores for distension of the small bowel and stomach were comparable. Inter-observer agreement for bowel labeling was found to be excellent (k 0.81). With the use of coronal images there was increased reader confidence in tracing the small bowel with both protocols. Acceptance for two bottles of VoLumen and water was greater among patients as compared to three bottles of VoLumen. Use of two bottles of VoLumen and water combination cost less than three bottles of VoLumen. Stomach and small bowel labeling with administration of 900 ml of VoLumen followed by 450 ml of water is cost effective and compares well to 1,350 ml of VoLumen alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18183403     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0841-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

1.  Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent.

Authors:  S E Thompson; V Raptopoulos; R L Sheiman; M M McNicholas; P Prassopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Non-absorbable fat-dense oral contrast agent for abdominal computed tomography.

Authors:  M Zwaan; E Gmelin; K J Borgis; E Rinast
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Crohn disease of the small bowel: preliminary comparison among CT enterography, capsule endoscopy, small-bowel follow-through, and ileoscopy.

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Jonathan A Leighton; Russell I Heigh; Virender K Sharma; Alvin C Silva; Giovanni De Petris; Joseph G Hentz; David E Fleischer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Helical CT of the stomach: evaluation with water as an oral contrast agent.

Authors:  K M Horton; E K Fishman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Evaluation of a low-density gastrointestinal contrast agent: effect on computed tomography angiography.

Authors:  D Alexander; E Krupinski; W Wright; T Barrette; T McCreery; E Unger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT.

Authors:  Alec J Megibow; James S Babb; Elizabeth M Hecht; Jennie J Cho; Carmela Houston; Michael M Boruch; Archie B Williams
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  CT of the bowel: use of water to enhance depiction.

Authors:  G Angelelli; L Macarini
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Use of water as an oral contrast agent for CT study of the stomach.

Authors:  G Angelelli; L Macarini; A Fratello
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Evaluation of simethicone-coated cellulose as a negative oral contrast agent for abdominal CT.

Authors:  Dushyant V Sahani; Kartik S Jhaveri; Roy V D'souza; Jose C Varghese; Elkan Halpern; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Peter F Hahn; Sanjay Saini
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Multiplanar spiral CT enterography in patients with Crohn's disease using a negative oral contrast material: initial results of a noninvasive imaging approach.

Authors:  Pia Reittner; Toria Goritschnig; Wolfgang Petritsch; Otto Doerfler; Klaus W Preidler; Thomas Hinterleitner; Dieter H Szolar
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-04-30       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  2 in total

1.  Biodegradable iodinated polydisulfides as contrast agents for CT angiography.

Authors:  Erlei Jin; Zheng-Rong Lu
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 12.479

2.  Normal appendiceal diameter in children: does choice of CT oral contrast (VoLumen versus Gastrografin) make a difference?

Authors:  Teresa Victoria; Soroosh Mahboubi
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2010-05-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.