Journal of Experimental & Clinical Medicine
Volume 2, Issue 4 , Pages 186-191, August 2010

Depiction of Bowel Wall Visualization and Dilation in Abdominopelvic MDCT: Comparison of High-attenuation Contrast Medium, Water and Whole Milk

  • Ching-Huei Kung

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Hung-Jung Wang

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Ting-Kai Leung

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Department of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Yi-Hsiang Lin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Ya-Yen Chen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • ,
  • Chi-Ming Lee

      Affiliations

    • Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Department of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, 252 Wu Hsing Street, Taipei 110, Taiwan

Received 22 October 2009; received in revised form 4 March 2010; accepted 28 April 2010.

Article Outline

Background

High-attenuation oral contrast agents in the form of iodine solutions or barium suspensions have been used traditionally and effectively for abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations. Apart from the unpleasant taste, there are relatively few disadvantages that may affect interpretation, such as pseudotumor formation due to incomplete mixing of contrast material with the bowel contents and poor mural discrimination. Thus, low-attenuation oral contrast materials are needed.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of whole milk as a low-attenuation contrast agent compared with water-soluble contrast medium and water for abdomi-nopelvic CT.

Methods

A total of 152 patients were randomly assigned to receive whole milk (4%), water or water-soluble contrast medium (Optiral). All CT scans were performed using a 64-multidetector CT scanner with a 0.35-second rotation time. Two radiologists were responsible for reviewing the images to assess bowel wall enhancement and bowel dilation.

Results

There were no differences in average dilation scores among the three groups for duodenum and jejunum. The average dilation score in the milk group was higher than that in the water-soluble contrast medium group in the antrum, and there was no difference between water and milk. For the ileum, there were no differences in the average dilation scores in the milk and water-soluble contrast medium groups, and milk produced better dilation compared with water. Bowel enhancement in the water and milk groups was stronger than that in the water-soluble contrast medium group. The major side effects of milk were nausea and flatulence.

Conclusion

We concluded that abdominopelvic multidetector CT with whole milk provides better bowel dilation and wall visualization compared with high-attenuation contrast medium. Whole milk and water have potential as good oral contrast materials for bowel discrimination. However, whole milk should be considered as an alternative to water in cases of disease suspected in the pelvis.

Key Words:  abdominal computed tomography , multidetector computed tomography , water-soluble contrast medium , whole milk

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Hamlin DJ , Burgener FA . Positive and negative contrast agents in CT evaluation of the abdomen and pelvis . J Comput Tomogr . 1981;5:82–90
  2. Zwaan M , Gmelin E , Borgis KJ , Rinast E . Non-absorbable fat-dense oral contrast agent for abdominal computed tomography . Eur J Radiol . 1992;14:189–191
  3. Raptopoulos V, Davis MA, Davidoff A, Karellas A, Hays D, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Fat density oral contrast agent for abdominal CT . Radiology . 1987;164:653–656
  4. Horton KM , Fishman EK , Gayler B . The use of iohexol as oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis . J Comput Assist Tomogr . 2008;32:207–209
  5. Cohen MD , Schreiner R , Grosfeld J , Weber T , Lemons J , Jansen R . A new look at the neonatal bowel-contrast studies with metrizamide (Amipaque) . J Pediatr Surg . 1983;18:442–448
  6. Winter TC , Ager JD , Nghiem HV , Hill RS , Harrison SD , Freeny PC . Upper gastrointestinal tract and abdomen: water as an orally administered contrast agent for helical CT . Radiology . 1996;201:365–370
  7. 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
  8. Thompson SE , Raptopoulos V , Sheiman R , McNicholas MJ , Prassopoulos P . Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent . Radiology . 1999;211:870–875
  9. Herman S . Computed tomography contrast enhancement principles and the use of high-concentration contrast media . J Comput Assist Tomogr . 2004;28:S7–S11
  10. Young BM, Fletcher JG, Booya F, Paulsen S, Fidler J, Johnson CD, et al  Head-to-head comparison of oral contrast agents for cross-sectional enterography: small bowel distention, timing, and side effects . J Comput Assist Tomogr . 2008;32:32–38
  11. Malik N , Khandelwal N , Garg K , Suri S . Computed tomography of the abdomen with fat density oral contrast medium . Australas Radiol . 1992;36:31–33
  12. Koo CW , Shah-Patel LR , Baer JW , Frager DH . Cost-effectiveness and patient tolerance of low-attenuation oral contrast material: milk versus VoLumen . AJR Am J Roentgenol . 2008;190:1307–1313
  13. Erturk SM, Mortele KJ, Oliva MR, Ichikawa T, Silverman SG, Cantisani V, et al  Depiction of normal gastrointestinal anatomy with MDCT: comparison of low- and high-attenuation oral contrast media . Eur J Radiol . 2008;66:84–87

PII: S1878-3317(10)60029-0

doi:10.1016/S1878-3317(10)60029-0

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Medicine
Volume 2, Issue 4 , Pages 186-191, August 2010

Article Tools