Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography

Introduction: Small bowel remains a challenging anatomical site. Imaging approaches like CT-enterography helps in diagnosing non specific clinical presentations and imaging aids in appropriate management. Hence, bowel evaluation by CT requires a oral contrast agent for diagnosing the bowel pathology...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Padhmanaban Elamparidhi, Selvakkalanjiyam Sivaranjanie, Rudrappa Ramesh Kumar, Rajkumar Sibhithran, A. Amaresh Kumar
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: JCDR Research and Publications Pvt. Ltd. 2017-10-01
Series:International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijars.net/articles/PDF/2316/29481_CE(VSU)_F(AK)_PF1(VSUAK)_PFA(VSU_GG)_PF2(VSU_GG).pdf
id doaj-076d86bf00aa4becbbc3a481fc242c9e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-076d86bf00aa4becbbc3a481fc242c9e2020-11-24T23:13:44ZengJCDR Research and Publications Pvt. Ltd.International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery2277-85432455-68742017-10-0164RO13RO1710.7860/IJARS/2017/29481:2316Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed TomographyPadhmanaban Elamparidhi0Selvakkalanjiyam Sivaranjanie1Rudrappa Ramesh Kumar2Rajkumar Sibhithran3A. Amaresh Kumar4Senior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.Postgraduate, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.Head, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.Postgraduate, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.Postgraduate, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.Introduction: Small bowel remains a challenging anatomical site. Imaging approaches like CT-enterography helps in diagnosing non specific clinical presentations and imaging aids in appropriate management. Hence, bowel evaluation by CT requires a oral contrast agent for diagnosing the bowel pathology. Thus, quantitative and qualitative analysis of three oral contrast agents i.e., water, mannitol and positive contrast was done for identification of ideal intraluminal contrast agent. Aim: To assess the performance of mannitol as an endoluminal contrast agent as compared to water and positive contrast in the evaluation of bowel, to compare the distention of bowel with different oral contrasts and also to assess the usefulness of bowel distension in assessment of mural enhancement pattern of bowel. Materials and Methods: A comparative observational study was performed which consisted of 75 patients who were divided into three groups of 25 patients each. Patients in each group were given 1500 ml of oral contrast. Group I was given mannitol, Group II was given water and Group III was given positive contrast. Assessments of bowel distention at various levels and mural enhancement of bowel were studied. Chisquare test was used as test of significance for qualitative data. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was the test of significance for quantitative data. Results: Bowel distention was excellent in mannitol compared to water and positive contrast. Wall enhancement and mural pattern was better appreciated with mannitol compared to other two contrast agents. Conclusion: Adequate bowel evaluation by CT requires an oral contrast agent which can cause maximal bowel distention, uniform intraluminal attenuation, increased contrast between intraluminal content and bowel wall with no artifacts and adverse effects. Mannitol has all the above characteristic and can be used as ideal neutral oral contrast agent.http://www.ijars.net/articles/PDF/2316/29481_CE(VSU)_F(AK)_PF1(VSUAK)_PFA(VSU_GG)_PF2(VSU_GG).pdfBowel distentionEndoluminal contrastMural fold visibility
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Padhmanaban Elamparidhi
Selvakkalanjiyam Sivaranjanie
Rudrappa Ramesh Kumar
Rajkumar Sibhithran
A. Amaresh Kumar
spellingShingle Padhmanaban Elamparidhi
Selvakkalanjiyam Sivaranjanie
Rudrappa Ramesh Kumar
Rajkumar Sibhithran
A. Amaresh Kumar
Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery
Bowel distention
Endoluminal contrast
Mural fold visibility
author_facet Padhmanaban Elamparidhi
Selvakkalanjiyam Sivaranjanie
Rudrappa Ramesh Kumar
Rajkumar Sibhithran
A. Amaresh Kumar
author_sort Padhmanaban Elamparidhi
title Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
title_short Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
title_full Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
title_fullStr Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Water, Mannitol and Positive Oral Contrast for Evaluation of Bowel By Computed Tomography
title_sort comparison of water, mannitol and positive oral contrast for evaluation of bowel by computed tomography
publisher JCDR Research and Publications Pvt. Ltd.
series International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery
issn 2277-8543
2455-6874
publishDate 2017-10-01
description Introduction: Small bowel remains a challenging anatomical site. Imaging approaches like CT-enterography helps in diagnosing non specific clinical presentations and imaging aids in appropriate management. Hence, bowel evaluation by CT requires a oral contrast agent for diagnosing the bowel pathology. Thus, quantitative and qualitative analysis of three oral contrast agents i.e., water, mannitol and positive contrast was done for identification of ideal intraluminal contrast agent. Aim: To assess the performance of mannitol as an endoluminal contrast agent as compared to water and positive contrast in the evaluation of bowel, to compare the distention of bowel with different oral contrasts and also to assess the usefulness of bowel distension in assessment of mural enhancement pattern of bowel. Materials and Methods: A comparative observational study was performed which consisted of 75 patients who were divided into three groups of 25 patients each. Patients in each group were given 1500 ml of oral contrast. Group I was given mannitol, Group II was given water and Group III was given positive contrast. Assessments of bowel distention at various levels and mural enhancement of bowel were studied. Chisquare test was used as test of significance for qualitative data. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was the test of significance for quantitative data. Results: Bowel distention was excellent in mannitol compared to water and positive contrast. Wall enhancement and mural pattern was better appreciated with mannitol compared to other two contrast agents. Conclusion: Adequate bowel evaluation by CT requires an oral contrast agent which can cause maximal bowel distention, uniform intraluminal attenuation, increased contrast between intraluminal content and bowel wall with no artifacts and adverse effects. Mannitol has all the above characteristic and can be used as ideal neutral oral contrast agent.
topic Bowel distention
Endoluminal contrast
Mural fold visibility
url http://www.ijars.net/articles/PDF/2316/29481_CE(VSU)_F(AK)_PF1(VSUAK)_PFA(VSU_GG)_PF2(VSU_GG).pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT padhmanabanelamparidhi comparisonofwatermannitolandpositiveoralcontrastforevaluationofbowelbycomputedtomography
AT selvakkalanjiyamsivaranjanie comparisonofwatermannitolandpositiveoralcontrastforevaluationofbowelbycomputedtomography
AT rudrapparameshkumar comparisonofwatermannitolandpositiveoralcontrastforevaluationofbowelbycomputedtomography
AT rajkumarsibhithran comparisonofwatermannitolandpositiveoralcontrastforevaluationofbowelbycomputedtomography
AT aamareshkumar comparisonofwatermannitolandpositiveoralcontrastforevaluationofbowelbycomputedtomography
_version_ 1725596850549948416