OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of CT colonography of patients who have undergone sigmoid colostomy after abdominoperineal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven men and 11 women (mean age, 57.2 ± 14.5 [SD] years) who had undergone abdominoperineal resection with sigmoid colostomy for rectal cancer were included. Colonic cleansing and fecal tagging were performed with magnesium citrate and 5% weight/volume barium. A conventional small rectal catheter with a retention balloon was introduced into the colonic stoma. An inflated balloon (15-25 mL) was positioned several centimeters beneath the skin. The interposed tissue acted as the mechanism for preventing balloon expulsion during colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. Unenhanced right decubitus and contrast-enhanced supine images were obtained. Air-fluid leak, balloon expulsion, complications, and colonic distention evaluated on a 4-point scale in which 1 was the worst and 4 the best and mucosal coverage were assessed. RESULTS: Examinations were performed uneventfully for all but one patient, who had temporary air and fluid leakage. The mean amount of carbon dioxide used was 2.64 ± 0.64 L. In the right decubitus position, the mean distention grade of each colonic segment was 2.7 ± 1.1 (sigmoid), 3.4 ± 0.6 (descending), 3.6 ± 0.5 (transverse), 3.6 ± 0.5 (ascending), and 3.7 ± 0.5 (cecum). In the supine position the mean grades were 2.7 ± 1.2, 3.1 ± 0.7, 3.7 ± 0.5, 3.7 ± 0.5, and 3.8 ± 0.4. Four patients (22.2%) had segments not adequately visualized in either position owing to luminal collapse; all of these segments were in the sigmoid colon. Three patients (16.7%) had areas submerged under fecal matter in both positions, but these areas were evaluable because of fecal tagging or IV contrast enhancement. CONCLUSION: CT colonographic examination through a sigmoid stoma was technically feasible with currently available instruments, but further improvements in technique are needed.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of CT colonography of patients who have undergone sigmoid colostomy after abdominoperineal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven men and 11 women (mean age, 57.2 ± 14.5 [SD] years) who had undergone abdominoperineal resection with sigmoid colostomy for rectal cancer were included. Colonic cleansing and fecal tagging were performed with magnesium citrate and 5% weight/volume barium. A conventional small rectal catheter with a retention balloon was introduced into the colonic stoma. An inflated balloon (15-25 mL) was positioned several centimeters beneath the skin. The interposed tissue acted as the mechanism for preventing balloon expulsion during colonic insufflation with carbon dioxide. Unenhanced right decubitus and contrast-enhanced supine images were obtained. Air-fluid leak, balloon expulsion, complications, and colonic distention evaluated on a 4-point scale in which 1 was the worst and 4 the best and mucosal coverage were assessed. RESULTS: Examinations were performed uneventfully for all but one patient, who had temporary air and fluid leakage. The mean amount of carbon dioxide used was 2.64 ± 0.64 L. In the right decubitus position, the mean distention grade of each colonic segment was 2.7 ± 1.1 (sigmoid), 3.4 ± 0.6 (descending), 3.6 ± 0.5 (transverse), 3.6 ± 0.5 (ascending), and 3.7 ± 0.5 (cecum). In the supine position the mean grades were 2.7 ± 1.2, 3.1 ± 0.7, 3.7 ± 0.5, 3.7 ± 0.5, and 3.8 ± 0.4. Four patients (22.2%) had segments not adequately visualized in either position owing to luminal collapse; all of these segments were in the sigmoid colon. Three patients (16.7%) had areas submerged under fecal matter in both positions, but these areas were evaluable because of fecal tagging or IV contrast enhancement. CONCLUSION: CT colonographic examination through a sigmoid stoma was technically feasible with currently available instruments, but further improvements in technique are needed.
Authors: Eric P van der Stok; Manon C W Spaander; Dirk J Grünhagen; Cornelis Verhoef; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Jaap Stoker; Onofre Alarcon; Federico Barbaro; Davide Bellini; Michael Bretthauer; Margriet C De Haan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Monika Ferlitsch; Steve Halligan; Emma Helbren; Mikael Hellstrom; Ernst J Kuipers; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Emanuele Neri; Lucio Petruzziello; Andrew Plumb; Daniele Regge; Stuart A Taylor; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jong Keon Jang; Seong Ho Park; Jong Seok Lee; Hyun Jin Kim; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 3.500