Cargando…

Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography

Background and objectives To perform contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen with water, mannitol, or iodinated positive contrast as an oral contrast agent, and compare the distension and enhancement pattern of the bowel. Methods This was a prospective observational study conduct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thati, Sai Soumya, Nagegowda, Rachegowda, Sakalecha, Anil K, Savagave, Shivaprasad G, Patil, Divya T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9122339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35607530
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24316
_version_ 1784711324269281280
author Thati, Sai Soumya
Nagegowda, Rachegowda
Sakalecha, Anil K
Savagave, Shivaprasad G
Patil, Divya T
author_facet Thati, Sai Soumya
Nagegowda, Rachegowda
Sakalecha, Anil K
Savagave, Shivaprasad G
Patil, Divya T
author_sort Thati, Sai Soumya
collection PubMed
description Background and objectives To perform contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen with water, mannitol, or iodinated positive contrast as an oral contrast agent, and compare the distension and enhancement pattern of the bowel. Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted on 90 patients over a period of 12 months who were referred for CECT abdomen. Patients were randomly divided into three groups (30 each) and were given water, mannitol, or positive oral contrast before the CECT study. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the bowel for distension, mural fold pattern, and enhancement was analyzed at various anatomical levels. A qualitative examination of bowel loops was done in the three groups by using a continuous 4-point scale. Results The mean distension at the duodenum was 1.89 ± 0.33 cm (mean ± SD) with water, 2.28 ± 0.36 cm with mannitol, and 2.01 ± 0.33 cm with positive oral contrast. Overall, maximum luminal distension was seen at the level of the duodenum, followed by the jejunum across all the groups. Bowel characteristics were far superior in the mannitol group compared to water and positive oral contrast at all anatomical levels. Conclusion Small bowel distension was excellent with mannitol, followed by positive oral contrast, and least with water. Mural characteristics and enhancement patterns were better with mannitol as compared with water and with positive oral contrast.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9122339
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91223392022-05-22 Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography Thati, Sai Soumya Nagegowda, Rachegowda Sakalecha, Anil K Savagave, Shivaprasad G Patil, Divya T Cureus Radiology Background and objectives To perform contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen with water, mannitol, or iodinated positive contrast as an oral contrast agent, and compare the distension and enhancement pattern of the bowel. Methods This was a prospective observational study conducted on 90 patients over a period of 12 months who were referred for CECT abdomen. Patients were randomly divided into three groups (30 each) and were given water, mannitol, or positive oral contrast before the CECT study. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the bowel for distension, mural fold pattern, and enhancement was analyzed at various anatomical levels. A qualitative examination of bowel loops was done in the three groups by using a continuous 4-point scale. Results The mean distension at the duodenum was 1.89 ± 0.33 cm (mean ± SD) with water, 2.28 ± 0.36 cm with mannitol, and 2.01 ± 0.33 cm with positive oral contrast. Overall, maximum luminal distension was seen at the level of the duodenum, followed by the jejunum across all the groups. Bowel characteristics were far superior in the mannitol group compared to water and positive oral contrast at all anatomical levels. Conclusion Small bowel distension was excellent with mannitol, followed by positive oral contrast, and least with water. Mural characteristics and enhancement patterns were better with mannitol as compared with water and with positive oral contrast. Cureus 2022-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9122339/ /pubmed/35607530 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24316 Text en Copyright © 2022, Thati et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Radiology
Thati, Sai Soumya
Nagegowda, Rachegowda
Sakalecha, Anil K
Savagave, Shivaprasad G
Patil, Divya T
Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title_full Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title_fullStr Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title_short Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography
title_sort comparison of mannitol, water, and iodine-based oral contrast in the evaluation of the bowel by multi-detector computed tomography
topic Radiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9122339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35607530
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24316
work_keys_str_mv AT thatisaisoumya comparisonofmannitolwaterandiodinebasedoralcontrastintheevaluationofthebowelbymultidetectorcomputedtomography
AT nagegowdarachegowda comparisonofmannitolwaterandiodinebasedoralcontrastintheevaluationofthebowelbymultidetectorcomputedtomography
AT sakalechaanilk comparisonofmannitolwaterandiodinebasedoralcontrastintheevaluationofthebowelbymultidetectorcomputedtomography
AT savagaveshivaprasadg comparisonofmannitolwaterandiodinebasedoralcontrastintheevaluationofthebowelbymultidetectorcomputedtomography
AT patildivyat comparisonofmannitolwaterandiodinebasedoralcontrastintheevaluationofthebowelbymultidetectorcomputedtomography