Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013; 23(04): 373-378
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.125594
Abdominal Radiology

Quantitative and qualitative bowel analysis using mannitol, water and iodine-based endoluminal contrast agent on 64-row detector CT

K Prakashini
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
,
Chandan Kakkar
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
,
Charudutt Sambhaji
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
,
Chandrakant M Shetty
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
,
Vedula Rajanikanth Rao
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective: To assess the performance of mannitol as a luminal contrast as compared to water and positive contrast in evaluation of bowel on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Materials and Methods: Three hundred patients were randomly selected for this study and were divided equally into three groups. Each subject received 1500 ml of oral contrast. Group 1 received 3% mannitol in water, group 2 received diluted iodinated positive contrast, and group 3 received plain water without additives. Qualitative and quantitative analysis for distension, fold visibility, and overall image quality were analyzed by actual diameter measurement and point scale system at different bowel levels. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey′s HSD Post-hoc test and Pearson′s Chi-square (exact test) test were applied. Results: Group 1 showed better results for small bowel distension, intraluminal homogeneity, and visibility of mucosal folds on quantitative and qualitative analysis with statistically significant P value (P<0.001). The ileo-caecal junction distension and mural feature visibility was better with mannitol (P < 0.001). No significant difference in distension of stomach and duodenum was found between the three groups. Conclusion: Mannitol as endoluminal contrast increases the diagnostic accuracy of the investigative studies in comparison to water and iodine-based contrast by producing significantly better bowel distension and visibility of mural features with improved image quality without additional adverse effects.

Keywords

Bowel distension - iodinated positive contrast - mannitol - mural details - water


Publication History

Article published online:
30 July 2021

© 2013. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Horton KM, Fishman EK. The current status of multidetector row CT and three-dimensional imaging of the small bowel. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:199-212.
  • 2 Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M, Maeda K, Nitta N, Takahashi M. Cross-sectional imaging in Crohn disease. Radiographics 2004;24:689-702.
  • 3 Garrett PR, Meshkov SL, Perimutter GS. Oral contrast agents in CT of the abdomen. Radiology 1984;153:545-6.
  • 4 Ramsay DW, Markham DH, Morgan B, Rodgers PM, Liddicoat AJ. The use of dilute Calogen as a fat density oral contrast medium in upper abdominal computed tomography, compared with the use of water and positive oral contrast media. Clin Radiol 2001;56:670-73.
  • 5 Turetschek K, Schober E, Wunderbaldinger P, Bernhard C, Schima W, Puespoek A, et al. Findings at helical CT-enteroclysis in symptomatic patients with crohn disease: Correlation with endoscopic and surgical findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:488-92.
  • 6 Berther R, Patak MA, Eckhardt B, Erturk SM, Zollikofer CL. Comparison of neutral oral contrast versus positive oral contrast medium in abdominal multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1902-9.
  • 7 Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Sandborn WJ. Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: Noninvasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy-feasibility study. Radiology 2003;229:275-81.
  • 8 Reittner P, Goritschnig T, Petritsch W, Doerfler O, Preidler KW, Hinterleitner T, et al. Multiplanar spiral CT enterography in patients with Crohn′s disease using a negative oral contrast material: Initial results of a noninvasive imaging approach. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2253-7.
  • 9 Horton KM, Fishman EK. Multidetector-row computed tomography and 3-dimensional computed tomography imaging of small bowel neoplasms: Current concept in diagnosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:106-16.
  • 10 Zhang LH, Zhang SZ, Hu HJ, Gao M, Zhang M, Cao Q, et al. Multi-detector CT enterography with iso-osmotic mannitol as oral contrast for detecting small bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:2324-9.
  • 11 Hebert JJ, Taylor AJ, Winter TC, Reichelderfer M, Weichert JP. Low-attenuation oral GI contrast agents in abdominal-pelvic computed tomography. Abdom Imaging 2006;31:48-53.
  • 12 Meindl TM, Hagl E, Reiser MF, Mueller-Lisse UG. Comparison of 2 different protocols for ingestion of low-attenuating oral contrast agent for multidetector computed tomography of the abdomen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:218-22.
  • 13 Friedrich JM, Skinningsrud K, Welter C, Eide H, Merkle E. Oral administration of iopentol compared with amidotrizoate both diluted to 2% in imaging of the gastrointestinal tract in abdominal contrast enhanced CT. Eur Radiol 1997;7:S140-4.
  • 14 Borthne AS, Abdelnoor M, Storaas T, Pierre-Jerome C, Kløw NE. Low osmolarity: A decisive parameter of bowel agents in intestinal magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1331-6.
  • 15 Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM, Cho JJ, Houston C, Boruch MM, et al. Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2006;238:87-95.
  • 16 Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, Herborn CU, Ruhm SG, Debatin JF. Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 2003;228:279-83.