Premium
Magnetic resonance colonography with limited bowel preparation: A comparison of three strategies
Author(s) -
Florie Jasper,
van Gelder Rogier E.,
Haberkorn Brigitte,
Birnie Erwin,
Lavini Cristina,
Reitsma Johannes B.,
Stoker Jaap
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.20880
Subject(s) - gadolinium , lumen (anatomy) , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , homogeneity (statistics) , confidence interval , nuclear medicine , radiology , bowel preparation , image quality , contrast (vision) , colonoscopy , mathematics , colorectal cancer , computer science , chemistry , image (mathematics) , artificial intelligence , statistics , organic chemistry , cancer
Purpose To prospectively compare three strategies of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging. Materials and Methods Three strategies were compared: (S1) gadolinium as oral tagging agent and a gadolinium‐water mixture for rectal filling (bright lumen), (S2) oral barium and water rectally, and (S3) oral barium and air rectally. In S2 and S3 (both dark lumen) gadolinium was injected intravenously. Three‐dimensional (3D) T1‐weighted and two‐dimensional (2D) T2‐weighted sequences were used. Two observers scored diagnostic confidence and image quality (contrast, homogeneity, artifacts), analyzed by chi‐squared and Fisher's exact test. Patient experience and preference were determined by questionnaire (Mann‐Whitney test). Results A total of 45 patients were included, 15 were randomly assigned per strategy. Diagnostic confidence of S1 and S3 is significantly better than for S2. S1 has the additional advantage of showing significantly better contrast between bowel wall and lumen, and showing significantly better homogeneity on both T1‐ and T2‐weighted sequences, but with significantly more artifacts on the T1‐weighted sequences. S3 showed significantly better contrast and homogeneity than S2 on the T2‐weighted sequences. Bowel preparation of S1 was rated significantly better. Patient preference was comparable. Conclusion Image quality was best using the bright lumen strategy or the dark lumen strategy using air for rectal filling. Although bowel preparation was rated best using the bright lumen strategy, patient preference was comparable. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.