4.5 Article

Technical quality of CT colonography in relation with diverticular disease

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 81, 期 3, 页码 E250-E254

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.006

关键词

Computed tomography; Computed tomography colonography; Diverticular disease; Optical colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the study is to explore how the technical quality of the examination was affected by diverticular disease. Materials and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 78 subjects who underwent CTC for screening (n = 58) or staging (n = 20) colorectal cancer, 38 of them (49%) after an incomplete optical colonoscopy. Patients were administered a mild laxative and a iodinated contrast material for fecal tagging. We scored both the bowel preparation and the overall colon distension as poor, good, or optimal and measured the mean sigmoid colon diameter. We counted the number of diverticula and classified patients as having or not a severe diverticular disease (SDD). The number of the prompts of computer aided diagnosis (CAD) per patient was also considered. Mann-Whitney U and chi(2) tests were performed. Results: No CTC complications occurred. The bowel cleansing was poor in 8 (10%) patients, good in 29 (37%) and optimal in 41 (53%); colon distension was poor in 7 (9%) patients, good in 38 (49%), and optimal in 33 (42%). Fifty-four (69%) showed diverticula and 30 (38%) had an SDD. Bowel cleansing and distension were not significantly impaired by neither diverticula (p > 0.590) nor the SDD (p > 0.110). Mean sigmoid colon diameter was reduced in presence of diverticula (28 mm versus 23 mm, p = 0.009) or SDD (26 mm versus 22 mm, p = 0.016). The mean number of CAD prompts per patient was not significantly increased by the presence of SDD (p = 0.829). Conclusions: Bowel cleansing and distension at CTC were not influenced by the presence of diverticular disease. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据