AJR AJR-based Continuing Ed for Technologists
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muradali, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muradali, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 171, 475-481, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Improved retroperitoneal and gastrointestinal sonography using oral contrast agents in a porcine model

D Muradali, PN Burns, G Pron, D Hope-Simpson and S Wilson
Department of Medical Imaging, The Toronto Hospital, Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal sonography can be compromised by the presence of air within the scanning field. Gas-displacing oral contrast agents have the potential to improve the diagnostic yield of routine abdominal sonography. The purpose of this study was to investigate two oral contrast agents and water and to compare their ability to improve abdominal sonography with an unenhanced baseline study and each other in a porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The acoustic properties of agent 1 (Oralex; Molecular Biosystems, San Diego, CA), a suspension of polydextrose in purified water; agent 2, a homemade agent (named BMW), a suspension of polysaccharide particles in water; and water were assessed in finger phantoms under laboratory conditions. Each solution was subsequently evaluated in 10 pigs, for a total of 30 animals. The bolus character, gas artifact, abdominal viscera, vessels, and gut wall were graded from 1 (nondiagnostic) to 5 (excellent) in the unenhanced and postcontrast states. Postcontrast grades were compared with unenhanced baseline grades using the Wilcoxon signed-rank correlation. Agents were compared with each other using the Mann-Whitney U test (Wilcoxon rank sum test). RESULTS: All three solutions were hypoechoic, were homogeneous, and showed minimal attenuation and backscatter. Both oral contrast agents had excellent bolus characteristics (agent 1, grade 5.0 +/- 0; agent 2, grade 4.6 +/- 0.5), displaced gas from the scanning field, and significantly improved visibility in all categories, particularly the gut. No difference in performance was found between agents 1 and agent 2. Water had poor bolus characteristics (grade 1.3 +/- 0.48) and did not improve visibility over baseline. CONCLUSION: The acoustic in vitro properties of agent 1 and agent 2 approach that of an ideal sonographic contrast agent. Both agents are superior to water in their improvement of direct visualization of the retroperitoneum and the gut in abdominal sonography in a porcine model.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.