BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (1996) 69, 906-909
© 1996 British Institute of Radiology
doi:
Services
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bradley, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, P. M.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 69, Issue 826 906-909, Copyright © 1996 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Does bowel preparation improve the quality of intravenous urography?

AJ Bradley and PM Taylor
Department of Clinical Radiology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK.

Many radiology departments continue to use bowel preparation prior to intravenous urography (IVU) despite recent studies questioning its value. This prospective study was designed to test the hypothesis that bowel preparation does not affect the quality of IVU, the number of films taken, or the use of tomography. 144 patients were randomized into three groups; 49 had no preparation, 48 received a mild stimulant laxative (Dulcolax), and 47 took an osmotic laxative (Citramag). The subsequent IVUs were then reviewed by two observers; the control and contrast films were scored for the presence of faecal residue, and the visibility of the renal tract, respectively. Patients were also questioned about the side effects of the two preparations. There was no significant difference in the scores for renal tract visibility in those patients receiving stimulant laxative when compared with the unprepared group. Those receiving the osmotic laxative had significantly less faecal residue but this was at the expense of an increased amount of bowel gas. The osmotic laxative group had significantly higher scores, indicating better visualization of the urinary tract, than the other groups, but no significant reduction in the number of radiographs taken or the use of tomography. This group also reported more side effects. Overall our results suggest that the routine use of a laxative prior to an IVU examination does not decrease the radiation dose and produces some patient inconvenience. The practice therefore cannot be routinely recommended.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
M Jansson, H Geijer, and T Andersson
Bowel preparation for excretory urography is not necessary: a randomized trial
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2007; 80(956): 617 - 624.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
E Yakoumakis, I A Tsalafoutas, D Nikolaou, I Nazos, E Koulentianos, and C. Proukakis
Differences in effective dose estimation from dose-area product and entrance surface dose measurements in intravenous urography
Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2001; 74(884): 727 - 734.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1996 by the British Institute of Radiology.