OBJECTIVE: To compare small bowel distension and bowel wall visualization among three different patients' positions (supine, sitting and right decubitus) during administration of oral contrast media in preparation for CT enterography (CTE). METHODS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (104 males and 46 females; mean age 34.6 years, range 15-78 years) who were scheduled to undergo CTE were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated into the three position groups during oral contrast media administration, and there were 50 patients in each group. Two blinded radiologists independently scored the luminal distension and visualization of the bowel wall using a continuous 5-point scale (1: worst and 5: best) at the jejunum and ileum. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between any two groups among the three positions for bowel distension and wall visualization. RESULTS: For ileal distension, the supine and sitting positions performed better than the right decubitus position [for reader 1, mean: 3.4/3.2/2.9 (hereafter, supine/sitting/right decubitus in order), p = 0.002/0.033; for reader 2, 3.3/3.0/2.6, p < 0.001/0.027]. However, there was no significant difference among the three groups for jejunal distension (for reader 1, 2.4/2.3/2.2; for reader 2, 2.4/2.4/2.2, p > 0.05, respectively). For bowel wall visualization, the supine and sitting positions were superior to the right decubitus position for the ileum when scored by one reader (4.0/3.8/3.4, p = 0.001/0.015). CONCLUSION: Supine and sitting positions during the administration of oral contrast media provided better ileal distension than the right decubitus position in obtaining CTE. Advances in knowledge: The performance of CTE largely depends on adequate luminal distension and wall visualization. As the terminal ileum is the predominant site of small bowel pathology for inflammatory bowel disease, the supine or sitting position would be preferable for patients who are suspected of having small bowel pathology.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare small bowel distension and bowel wall visualization among three different patients' positions (supine, sitting and right decubitus) during administration of oral contrast media in preparation for CT enterography (CTE). METHODS: A total of 150 consecutive patients (104 males and 46 females; mean age 34.6 years, range 15-78 years) who were scheduled to undergo CTE were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated into the three position groups during oral contrast media administration, and there were 50 patients in each group. Two blinded radiologists independently scored the luminal distension and visualization of the bowel wall using a continuous 5-point scale (1: worst and 5: best) at the jejunum and ileum. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between any two groups among the three positions for bowel distension and wall visualization. RESULTS: For ileal distension, the supine and sitting positions performed better than the right decubitus position [for reader 1, mean: 3.4/3.2/2.9 (hereafter, supine/sitting/right decubitus in order), p = 0.002/0.033; for reader 2, 3.3/3.0/2.6, p < 0.001/0.027]. However, there was no significant difference among the three groups for jejunal distension (for reader 1, 2.4/2.3/2.2; for reader 2, 2.4/2.4/2.2, p > 0.05, respectively). For bowel wall visualization, the supine and sitting positions were superior to the right decubitus position for the ileum when scored by one reader (4.0/3.8/3.4, p = 0.001/0.015). CONCLUSION: Supine and sitting positions during the administration of oral contrast media provided better ileal distension than the right decubitus position in obtaining CTE. Advances in knowledge: The performance of CTE largely depends on adequate luminal distension and wall visualization. As the terminal ileum is the predominant site of small bowel pathology for inflammatory bowel disease, the supine or sitting position would be preferable for patients who are suspected of having small bowel pathology.
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
Authors: Ingrid Markova; Katerina Kluchova; Radek Zboril; Miroslav Mashlan; Miroslav Herman Journal: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.245
Authors: Brett M Young; Joel G Fletcher; Fargol Booya; Scott Paulsen; Jeff Fidler; C Daniel Johnson; James Huprich; John Barlow; Andrew Trout Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: S A Taylor; F Avni; C G Cronin; C Hoeffel; S H Kim; A Laghi; M Napolitano; P Petit; J Rimola; D J Tolan; M R Torkzad; M Zappa; G Bhatnagar; C A J Puylaert; J Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paweł Osemlak; Grzegorz Jędrzejewski; Magdalena Woźniak; Paweł Nachulewicz Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 1.889