TY - JOUR
T1 - Implementation of MR colonography
AU - Achiam, M P
AU - Chabanova, E
AU - Løgager, V
AU - Thomsen, H S
AU - Rosenberg, J
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - BACKGROUND: MR colonography (MRC) is a promising method of examining the colon, but is limited to a few specialist centres. The purpose of this article was to describe the implementation of MRC with fecal tagging.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for conventional colonoscopy (CC) were offered MRC with fecal tagging before CC. Two days before MRC patients ingested an oral contrast agent. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed. MR images were rated by a blinded investigator.RESULTS: In 6 months, 30 consecutive patients were included. The median time in the MR suite was 44 min, 23 min for the MRC examination and 9 min for the evaluation. The median time for CC was 32 min. Sixty-six percent of the patients preferred MRC as the future method of examination, 10% preferred CC, 21% had no preferences. Of the oral contrast agents, barium sulphate with ferumoxsil was significantly better than barium sulphate alone.CONCLUSION: The majority of the patients found MRC less unpleasant than CC and a majority would prefer MRC over CC as a future colon examination. MRC also appears to be less time consuming to the patients and medical personnel than CC with post-procedural monitoring.
AB - BACKGROUND: MR colonography (MRC) is a promising method of examining the colon, but is limited to a few specialist centres. The purpose of this article was to describe the implementation of MRC with fecal tagging.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for conventional colonoscopy (CC) were offered MRC with fecal tagging before CC. Two days before MRC patients ingested an oral contrast agent. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed. MR images were rated by a blinded investigator.RESULTS: In 6 months, 30 consecutive patients were included. The median time in the MR suite was 44 min, 23 min for the MRC examination and 9 min for the evaluation. The median time for CC was 32 min. Sixty-six percent of the patients preferred MRC as the future method of examination, 10% preferred CC, 21% had no preferences. Of the oral contrast agents, barium sulphate with ferumoxsil was significantly better than barium sulphate alone.CONCLUSION: The majority of the patients found MRC less unpleasant than CC and a majority would prefer MRC over CC as a future colon examination. MRC also appears to be less time consuming to the patients and medical personnel than CC with post-procedural monitoring.
KW - Administration, Oral
KW - Barium Sulfate/administration & dosage
KW - Colonic Diseases/diagnosis
KW - Colonoscopy
KW - Contrast Media/administration & dosage
KW - Female
KW - Ferrosoferric Oxide
KW - Humans
KW - Iron/administration & dosage
KW - Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
KW - Magnetite Nanoparticles
KW - Male
KW - Oxides/administration & dosage
KW - Patient Satisfaction
KW - Siloxanes/administration & dosage
KW - Statistics, Nonparametric
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
U2 - 10.1007/s00261-006-9143-7
DO - 10.1007/s00261-006-9143-7
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 17019654
SN - 0942-8925
VL - 32
SP - 457
EP - 462
JO - Abdominal Imaging
JF - Abdominal Imaging
IS - 4
ER -