Literature DB >> 18320195

Dark-lumen MR colonography with fecal tagging: a comparison of water enema and air methods of colonic distension for detecting colonic neoplasms.

Sonia Rodriguez Gomez1, Mario Pagés Llinas, Antoni Castells Garangou, Carmen De Juan Garcia, Josep M Bordas Alsina, Jordi Rimola Gibert, Juan R Ayuso Colella, Carmen Ayuso Colella.   

Abstract

The purpose was to evaluate MR colonography (MRC) with barium fecal tagging in detecting colorectal pathology and to determine how air-based and water-based colonic distension influences MRC. We studied 83 patients with high risk of colonic neoplasms. All received oral barium sulfate for colonic preparation before unenhanced and enhanced T1-weighted gradient-echo MRC using either water (n=54) or air (n=29) for colonic distension. Fecal tagging, distension, and artifacts were recorded. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy within 2 weeks of MRC; the techniques were compared for detection of malignant neoplasms and polyps >or=1 cm, 6-9 mm, and <or=5 mm. Fecal tagging was "good" in 76% of the colonic segments in water-distended patients and 46% of air-distended patients. The degree of distension was "good" in 90.7% of water-distended patients and 44% of air-distended patients. Severe artifacts were present in 15% air-distended patients and 0.3% of water-distended patients. Both water-distended and air-distended MRC detected all malignant neoplasms and polyps >or=1 cm, but more air-distended MRC were excluded for poor quality. MRC with fecal tagging is useful for detecting lesions >or=1 cm. Air distension was inferior to water distension in most aspects. Water-based colonic distension should be used for barium-tagging MRC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18320195     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0900-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   7.034


  25 in total

Review 1.  Dark-lumen MR colonography.

Authors:  W Ajaj; J F Debatin; T Lauenstein
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2004-01-14

2.  Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Lynn A Wilson; Robert L Maccarty; Timothy J Welch; Duane M Ilstrup; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Impact of diet on stool signal in dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography.

Authors:  Susanne C Goehde; Waleed Ajaj; Thomas Lauenstein; Joerg F Debatin; Mark E Ladd
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Screening of colonic tumors by air-inflated magnetic resonance (MR) colonography.

Authors:  Wynnie W M Lam; Wai K Leung; Justin K L Wu; Nina M C So; Joseph J Y Sung
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)--a feasibility study.

Authors:  Waleed Ajaj; Thomas C Lauenstein; Hubert Schneemann; Christiane Kuehle; Christoph U Herborn; Susanne C Goehde; Stefan G Ruehm; Mathias Goyen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Strengths and weaknesses of dark-lumen MR colonography: clinical relevance of polyps smaller than 5 mm in diameter at the moment of their detection.

Authors:  Waleed Ajaj; Stefan G Ruehm; Guido Gerken; Mathias Goyen
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Preliminary assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for various colonic disorders.

Authors:  W Luboldt; P Bauerfeind; P Steiner; M Fried; G P Krestin; J F Debatin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-05-03       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-04-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; William S Harmsen; Kenneth P Offord; Ann M Harris; Lynn A Wilson; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Brian P Saunders; Paul Bassett; Maggie Vance; Clive I Bartram
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  3 in total

1.  MR colonography without bowel cleansing or water enema: a pilot study.

Authors:  A Sambrook; D Mcateer; S Yule; P Phull
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  MR colonography with a fecal tagging technique and water-based enema for the assessment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Piero Boraschi; Francescamaria Donati
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studies.

Authors:  Frank M Zijta; Shandra Bipat; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 5.315

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.