PURPOSE: The authors assessed the quality, diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptability of computed tomography (CT) colonography performed using a simplified bowel preparation and software for post-processing digital elimination of stool and fluid data from images compared with the examination obtained with conventional preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 40 consecutive asymptomatic patients aged between 48 and 72 years underwentCT colonography. In group A, the CT scan was performed with conventional bowel preparation (a full cathartic dose and oral contrast medium to tag any residue in the 3 days preceding the study). In the second group, CT colonography was performed after a reduced bowel preparation, with the oral contrast medium for residue tagging being administered only on the day of the investigation. Examination quality, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability (rated with a self-completed questionnaire) in the two groups of patients were compared by using the McNemar test. RESULTS: No significant difference was obtained with regard to examination quality (180 vs. 165 segments free from stools and fluid, p>0.05) and overall diagnostic accuracy (16/17 colonic polyps detected in group A and 12/13 in group B, p>0.05). The questionnaires revealed a greater acceptability of the reduced bowel preparation compared with the standard procedure (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients, the use of software for post-processing digital elimination of residue from images in conjunction with reduced bowel preparation does not reduce examination quality or diagnostic performance when compared with the conventional CT colonography technique and is more acceptable to and better tolerated by the patient.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The authors assessed the quality, diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptability of computed tomography (CT) colonography performed using a simplified bowel preparation and software for post-processing digital elimination of stool and fluid data from images compared with the examination obtained with conventional preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of 40 consecutive asymptomatic patients aged between 48 and 72 years underwent CT colonography. In group A, the CT scan was performed with conventional bowel preparation (a full cathartic dose and oral contrast medium to tag any residue in the 3 days preceding the study). In the second group, CT colonography was performed after a reduced bowel preparation, with the oral contrast medium for residue tagging being administered only on the day of the investigation. Examination quality, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability (rated with a self-completed questionnaire) in the two groups of patients were compared by using the McNemar test. RESULTS: No significant difference was obtained with regard to examination quality (180 vs. 165 segments free from stools and fluid, p>0.05) and overall diagnostic accuracy (16/17 colonic polyps detected in group A and 12/13 in group B, p>0.05). The questionnaires revealed a greater acceptability of the reduced bowel preparation compared with the standard procedure (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic patients, the use of software for post-processing digital elimination of residue from images in conjunction with reduced bowel preparation does not reduce examination quality or diagnostic performance when compared with the conventional CT colonography technique and is more acceptable to and better tolerated by the patient.
Authors: A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Michael E Zalis; Matthew A Barish; J Richard Choi; Abraham H Dachman; Helen M Fenlon; Joseph T Ferrucci; Seth N Glick; Andrea Laghi; Michael Macari; Elizabeth G McFarland; Martina M Morrin; Perry J Pickhardt; Jorge Soto; Judy Yee Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Neri; A Laghi; D Regge; P Sacco; T Gallo; F Turini; E Talini; R Ferrari; M Mellaro; M Rengo; S Marchi; D Caramella; C Bartolozzi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Abraham H Dachman; Damien O Dawson; Philippe Lefere; Hiro Yoshida; Nasreen U Khan; Nicole Cipriani; David T Rubin Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2006-09-13
Authors: Robert A Smith; Vilma Cokkinides; Durado Brooks; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: J G Fletcher; C D Johnson; T J Welch; R L MacCarty; D A Ahlquist; J E Reed; W S Harmsen; L A Wilson Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: E Neri; P Vagli; F Turini; F Cerri; A Bardine; C Cecchi; G Naldini; F Costa; S Marchi; C Bartolozzi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 3.469