摘要
AIM: To assess and compare the image quality of 4% sorbitol and diluted iodine 2%(positive oral contrast agent) in abdomino-pelvic multi-detector computed tomography.METHODS: Two-hundred patients, referred to the Radiology Department of a central educational hospital for multi-detector row abdominal-pelvic computed tomography, were randomly divided into two groups: the first group received 1500 m L of 4% sorbitol solution as a neutral contrast agent, while in the second group 1500 m L of meglumin solution as a positive contrast agent was administered in a one-way randomized prospective study. The results were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Luminal distension and mural thickness and mucosal enhancement were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis of the results was performed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 16 and the Mann-Whitney test at a confidence level of 95%. RESULTS: Use of neutral oral contrast agent significantly improved visualization of the small bowel wall thickness and mural appearance in comparison with administration of positive contrast agent(P < 0.01). In patients who received sorbitol, the small bowel showed better distention compared with those who received iodine solution as a positive contrast agent(P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrated that oral administration of sorbitol solution allows better luminal distention and visualization of mural features than iodine solution as a positive contrast agent.
AIM: To assess and compare the image quality of 4% sorbitol and diluted iodine 2%(positive oral contrast agent) in abdomino-pelvic multi-detector computed tomography.METHODS: Two-hundred patients, referred to the Radiology Department of a central educational hospital for multi-detector row abdominal-pelvic computed tomography, were randomly divided into two groups: the first group received 1500 m L of 4% sorbitol solution as a neutral contrast agent, while in the second group 1500 m L of meglumin solution as a positive contrast agent was administered in a one-way randomized prospective study. The results were independently reviewed by two radiologists. Luminal distension and mural thickness and mucosal enhancement were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis of the results was performed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 16 and the Mann-Whitney test at a confidence level of 95%. RESULTS: Use of neutral oral contrast agent significantly improved visualization of the small bowel wall thickness and mural appearance in comparison with administration of positive contrast agent(P < 0.01). In patients who received sorbitol, the small bowel showed better distention compared with those who received iodine solution as a positive contrast agent(P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrated that oral administration of sorbitol solution allows better luminal distention and visualization of mural features than iodine solution as a positive contrast agent.
