Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Radiol. 2006 Dec;60(3):460-4. Epub 2006 Oct 20.

Bowel preparation for CT-colonography: comparison of two different cleansing protocols.

Author information

1
Center for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospitals Ulm, Ulm, Germany. markus.juchems@uni-ulm.de <markus.juchems@uni-ulm.de>

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Comparison of cleansing effects and colonic distension observed with two polyethyleneglycol-solution (PEG) containing bowel preparation techniques prior to CT-colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

One hundred and three patients that received CTC in our institution were retrospectively evaluated. Fifty-one patients received preparation 1 (BP1; based on a GoLytely formulation+bisacodyl), 52 preparation 2 (BP2; based on a NuLytely formulation+bisacodyl). On multi-planar-reformatted (MPR) images, fluid residuals and colon distension were assessed in five colonic segments, from the ascending colon to the rectum.

RESULTS:

On average, significantly (p<0.001) lower fluid residuals were assesses when using BP2 regardless of the patient position. In prone position, a significantly lower fluid level was observed in the sigmoid using bowel preparation 2. The average maximum diameter measured for the whole colon was 5.2+/-0.6 cm in prone position and 4.8+/-0.6 cm in the supine position in BP1 (p<0.01). In BP2 the average maximum diameter measured for the whole colon was 5.3+/-0.6 cm in prone position and 4.7+/-0.5 cm in supine position, respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Overall, lower fluid residuals were scored using BP2. In both preparation groups we achieved better colonic distension in prone position. We were not able to distend the sigmoid better when insufflating air during patient repositioning.

PMID:
17055683
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.009
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center