Purpose: In contrast to esophageal perforations, the more radiopaque barium-suspensions are not as important as iodinated aqueous contrast agents for the detection of pharyngeal perforations. This study was performed to find out whether the highly different viscosities (of iodinated and barium-containing contrast agents with comparable radiopacities) are a reason for this.
Methods: Viscosity, subjective difference in contrast, and CT-density of an iodinated aqueous (Telebrix) and a 50 wt/vol% barium-containing contrast agent (Micropaque) were determined. Moreover, to exclude postoperative perforation, 104 patients were prospectively examined by pharyngography using both contrast media. Pharyngographies of patients with perforation were later compared by two independent readers. All patients with perforation were followed up clinically to exclude complications due to barium administration.
Results: In-vitro comparison showed comparable radiopacity but the 50 wt/vol% barium-suspension was much more viscous than the iodinated contrast agent. During pharyngography, totally, 14 perforations were clearly delineated with the iodinated aqueous contrast agent. However, two of them were not detected with the barium-suspension. All the other perforations presented equally.
Conclusions: Given a sufficient radiopacity, a low viscosity appears to be essential for a contrast agent to detect especially pharyngeal perforations. Thus, we recommend the sole use of an iodinated contrast agent (at suspicion of aspiration as isoosmolar variant) for this purpose.