BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

First published online August 6, 2007
British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 617-624
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/78311002

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jansson, M
Right arrow Articles by Andersson, T
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jansson, M
Right arrow Articles by Andersson, T

Full paper

Bowel preparation for excretory urography is not necessary: a randomized trial

M Jansson, MD, H Geijer, MD, PhD, BA and T Andersson, MD, PhD

Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence: Dr Margareta Jansson, Universitessjukhuset Örebro, Örebro 701 85, Sweden. E-mail: margareta.jansson3{at}orebroll.se

Despite the fact that computed tomography is becoming more commonly used to investigate the genitourinary tract, intravenous urography still plays an important role in uroradiology. The aim of this study was to compare bowel purgation and two other preparation methods — dietary restrictions and no preparations at all — in an attempt to find the optimal procedure for uniform practice. 210 consecutive patients were randomised to three preparation groups with 70 in each group. Group 1 received standard bowel purgation, Group 2 was instructed to fast, while Group 3 had no preparation at all. Irrespective of preparation, all patients underwent the same examination procedure. The examining radiographer and evaluating radiologists were unaware of the type of preparation given. Image quality was assessed according to European Commission criteria for excretory urography. The effectiveness of bowel purgation and the amount of residual gas were scored separately. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportions with fulfilled criteria between preparation Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3. A criterion was regarded as fulfilled only when all three observers agreed. Assessment of the amount of residual faeces proved the effectiveness of our standard bowel purgation. The results of our study show equality of the evaluated preparation methods and cannot justify further use of bowel purgation before excretory urography.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.