[Double blinded prospective study of usefulness of bowel preparation on outpatients before intravenous urography.].

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether or not a bowel preparation should be administered prior to intravenous urography (IVU) on outpatients at the Reykjavik Hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a period of seven months 89 outpatients remitted to IVU were randomly divided into two groups, A and B. Patients in group A went through bowel preparation before the investigation but patients in group B did not. The patients in group B were asked to consume only fluids, beginning the evening before the investigation. Five patients were excluded from the study. The remaining 84 patients were equally divided between groups A and B. Before the investigation all patients in both groups were asked to fill out a questionnaire giving their reactions to the preparation procedure. Three experienced radiologists performed image interpretation. Delineation of the urinary system, diagnostic ability and quality of cleansing were judged. The study was prospective and double blinded. The same type of contrast media, the same dose and the same type of film were used each time. A comparison of results between the two groups was carried out. RESULTS: The age distribution was the same for both groups. Most of the patients in group A (76%) experienced the cleansing procedure as uncomfortable and 12% as awful. In group B most of the patients felt the preparation was comfortable. No one in group B said that the preparation was uncomfortable. There was no difference between the groups according to delineation of the urinary system except for the urinary bladder, where the delineation was judged to be worse in group B. Air in the bowel was the main disturbing factor in group A, but both air and faeces in group B. The quality of cleansing was judged to be better in group A. There was no difference between the groups in terms of diagnostic ability. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation on outpatients before IVU causes discomfort to the patients and does not improve the quality of the results.

[Radiology in one hundred years.].

The history of radiology startet when Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen discovered the X-ray on the 8th of November 1895. At first there were X-rays on paper but fluoroscopy started soon after the discovery, and was used at first in diagnosis of lung- and heartdiseases. By introduction of contrast media the digestive system became visible on X-ray, and barium as a contrast agent was soon discovered. It became possible to do angiographies and at first natrium iodide was used as a contrast agent. As time went by other body systems could be examined like the nervous system, the heart, the arteries, etc. The greatest discovery after the X-ray was the computed tomography technique which made it possible to see axial slices and to differentiate between parenchymal organs. Two other techniques which do not use X-rays but are used in diagnoses are ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Digital luminescence radiography using a chest phantom. Comparison between radiographs displayed on monitor and hard-copy.

Ninety-eight digital radiographs of a chest phantom with simulated tumors in the mediastinum and left lung and a pneumothorax-simulation in the right hemithorax were compared with the corresponding examinations saved on optical disk and viewed on a 1,000-line monitor. The examinations were reviewed by 7 radiologists with different experience, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed. There was no significant difference between the hard-copy and the monitor results. A significant interobserver difference was seen only with the low attenuating 6 mm "tumor" and then only between the observer with the highest and the one with the lowest scores.