AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burling, D.
Right arrow Articles by Bartram, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burling, D.
Right arrow Articles by Bartram, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1506
AJR 2006; 186:96-103
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Automated Insufflation of Carbon Dioxide for MDCT Colonography: Distension and Patient Experience Compared with Manual Insufflation

David Burling1, Stuart A. Taylor1,2, Steve Halligan1,2, Louise Gartner1, Mehjabeen Paliwalla1, Chandani Peiris1, Leanne Singh1, Paul Bassett1 and Clive Bartram1

1 Department of Intestinal Imaging, St. Mark's and Northwick Park Hospitals, Harrow, United Kingdom HA1 3UJ.
2 Present address: Department of Imaging, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Rd., London, United Kingdom NW1 2BU.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the effects of automated and manual carbon dioxide insufflation before CT colonography on distention and patient acceptance.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. One hundred forty-one symptomatic subjects underwent CT colonography using either an automated device (n = 47) or a manual method (n = 94) for carbon dioxide insufflation. CT data sets were assessed retrospectively in consensus by two blinded observers who graded distention for six colonic segments using a 4-point scale. An additional assessment of the overall clinical adequacy of distention (yes/no) was also made, and any learning curve was sought. Each patient completed a validated 24-point patient questionnaire reflecting patient satisfaction and discomfort. Distention scores, clinical adequacy, and questionnaire responses were analyzed using ordered logistic regression, Fisher's exact test, and the Mann-Whitney test statistic, respectively.

RESULTS. Automated insufflation significantly improved distention overall (p = 0.001). For individual segments, distention was significantly improved in the sigmoid (p = 0.007) and descending (p < 0.001) colons when the patient was supine; and in the sigmoid (p = 0.02), descending (p = 0.001), and transverse (p = 0.02) colons when supine and prone positions were combined. No significant difference was seen in the clinical adequacy of distention, nor was there evidence of any learning curve for either insufflation method. Subjects were more weary after automated insufflation (p = 0.03), but no significant difference was seen for the remaining 23 questionnaire items or for feelings of bloating or discomfort.

CONCLUSION. Automated carbon dioxide insufflation significantly improves colonic distention compared with manual insufflation. Benefit is greatest in the left colon, particularly when the patient is supine. Patient acceptance is similar to that for manual insufflation.

Keywords: carbon dioxide • colon • colonography • CT • MDCT colonography


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. L. Van Uitert, R. M. Summers, J. M. White, K. K. Deshpande, J. R. Choi, and P. J. Pickhardt
Temporal and Multiinstitutional Quality Assessment of CT Colonography
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2008; 191(5): 1503 - 1508.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. Sosna, J. Bar-Ziv, E. Libson, M. Eligulashvili, and A. Blachar
CT Colonography: Positioning Order and Intracolonic Pressure
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): W175 - W180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. Y. Kim, S. H. Park, E. K. Choi, S. S. Lee, K. H. Lee, J. C. Kim, C. S. Yu, H. C. Kim, A. Y. Kim, and H. K. Ha
Automated Carbon Dioxide Insufflation for CT Colonography: Effectiveness of Colonic Distention in Cancer Patients with Severe Luminal Narrowing
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 698 - 706.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. K. Deshpande, R. M. Summers, R. L. Van Uitert, M. Franaszek, L. Brown, A. J. Dwyer, J. G. Fletcher, J. R. Choi, and P. J. Pickhardt
Quality Assessment for CT Colonography: Validation of Automated Measurement of Colonic Distention and Residual Fluid
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): 1457 - 1463.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
radtechHome page
D. S. WERDERMAN
CT Colonography
Radiol. Technol., March 1, 2007; 78(4): 309CT - 324CT.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
T. Mang, A. Maier, C. Plank, C. Mueller-Mang, C. Herold, and W. Schima
Pitfalls in Multi-Detector Row CT Colonography: A Systematic Approach
RadioGraphics, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 431 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.