ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of single scan CT colonography (CTC) using polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution with contrast medium (PEG-C) bowel preparation in children. Seven patients suspected of colorectal elevated lesions were subjected to CTC. All patients underwent bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG) at a dose of 32 +/- 3 ml/kgBW before the day of CTC. The water-soluble contrast agent was given to the patients at a dose of 0.6 +/- 0.1 ml/kgBW the next morning. After colonic air insufflation, the patient was scanned axially with a single run. After evaluation of multiplanar reformation images, 3-dimensional images (CT enema and virtual endoscopy image) were reconstructed. CT enema image was composed from air image and contrast-medium image. All studies were performed without complications. CTC showed the entire colon without blind spots in all patients with only single scan. In conclusion, the single scan CTC using PEG-C preparation is safe and less invasive compared to conventional CTC due to the shorter examination time and lower radiation dose.
Subject(s)
Colonography, Computed Tomographic/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Child , Child, Preschool , Colonic Polyps/diagnostic imaging , Contrast Media , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Polyethylene Glycols , Sensitivity and Specificity , Sigmoid Diseases/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the usefulness of combined polyethylene glycol solution plus contrast medium bowel preparation (PEG-C preparation) followed by dual-contrast computed tomography enema (DCCTE) and conventional colonoscopy. The main purpose of these examinations is the preoperative staging of already known tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients with colorectal tumors were alternately allocated to either a polyethylene glycol solution preparation (PEG preparation) group (n=50) or a PEG-C preparation group (n=50) before undergoing conventional colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography. After conventional colonoscopy, multidetector row CT scans were performed. Air images were reconstructed for both groups; contrast medium images were additionally reconstructed for the PEG-C preparation group. DCCTE images were a composite of air images and contrast medium images without use of dedicated electronic cleansing software. Quality scores (the presence or absence of blind spots of the colon) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Complete tumor images were obtained by DCCTE for all 50 (100%) lesions in the PEG-C preparation group, as compared with only nine of the 50 lesions (18%) in the PEG preparation group (air-contrast CT enema). The overall quality score in the PEG-C preparation group was significantly better than that in the PEG preparation group (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DCCTE showed the entire colon without blind spots in nearly all patients in the PEG-C preparation group because the areas under residual fluid were reconstructed as contrast medium images. DCCTE and conventional colonoscopy after PEG-C preparation are feasible and safe procedures that can be used for preoperative evaluation in patients with colorectal cancer.
