| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333
Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039.
2 Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center,
Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039.
3 Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195.
4 Center for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital
Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039.
OBJECTIVE. Dilute Hypaque Sodium is generally well accepted as an oral contrast agent for CT of pediatric patients who have experienced recent blunt abdominal trauma. However, Hypaque can cause complications. Using water as a substitute contrast agent eliminates these potential complications. The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of water with that of dilute Hypaque as an oral contrast agent. Our hypothesis was that we would find no significant difference in performance between the two agents in defining anatomic details of the hollow gastrointestinal tract.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a retrospective review of 74 CT scans obtained in infants and children who had received blunt abdominal trauma, scoring the quality of visualization of bowel structures, the presence of non–bowel-related findings, and the confidence level in making each assessment. The date range of the scans reviewed overlapped with the period in which the oral contrast material used for scanning such patients was switched from dilute Hypaque to water. Of the 74 CT scans that we reviewed, 53 were obtained with dilute Hypaque and 21 were obtained with water. The sex distribution between the two groups was compared using a chi-square test, whereas the mean age was compared using a two-sample two-sided Student's t test. A two-sample one-sided Student's t test of equivalence was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS. Sex distribution for the two groups of patients was not significantly different (69.81% of the group who received dilute Hypaque were boys; 68.18% of the group who received water were boys). Furthermore, the difference in the mean age for the two groups was not statistically significantly (dilute Hypaque group, 8.86 years; water group, 10.18 years). No statistically significant difference in performance of the contrast agents was found with respect to the detection of intraabdominal abnormality. As an oral contrast material, water performed as well as dilute Hypaque in facilitating visualization of all intraabdominal anatomic structures.
CONCLUSION. In defining anatomic details of the hollow gastrointestinal tract, water is as effective as dilute Hypaque as an oral contrast agent for CT in the setting of acute blunt abdominal trauma in pediatric patients.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Harieaswar, A. Rajesh, Y. Griffin, R. Tyagi, and B. Morgan Routine Use of Positive Oral Contrast Material Is Not Required for Oncology Patients Undergoing Follow-up Multidetector CT Radiology, January 1, 2009; 250(1): 246 - 253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. P. Wood Water for GI Contrast in Trauma CT AAP Grand Rounds, September 1, 2004; 12(3): 33 - 33. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
