Abdominal imaging · 2003
MR rectography evaluation of rectoceles with oral gadopentetate dimeglumine and polyethylene glycol solution.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Agildere A M, Tarhan N C, Ergeneli M H, Yologlu Z, Kurt A, Akgun S, Kayahan E M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We assessed the value of magnetic resonance (MR) rectography in diagnosing rectocele by using a combination of oral gadopentetate dimeglumine and polyethylene glycol solutions.
METHODS: T1-weighted, breath-hold, fast low-angle shot sequences were made in 22 patients in resting and straining states in the supine position before and after administration of oral paramagnetic contrast. Twelve patients received polyethylene glycol solution in addition to contrast, and 10 received contrast only. The pubococcygeal line was the reference used for diagnostic measurements. The quality of each sequence was graded. Paired t test, chi-square test, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were applied for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The results of noncontrast images were inconclusive. There was a statistically significant difference between MR imaging diagnosis of rectocele in patients in the straining position without and with contrast ( p < 0.05), and the difference was more prominent in patients using polyethylene glycol solution ( p < 0.001). Using oral contrast plus polyethylene glycol produced significantly better MR examinations in the resting and straining positions ( p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The combination of oral contrast and polyethylene glycol solution improves the diagnostic value of MR rectography and is particularly useful when noncontrast examinations are inconclusive.
METHODS: T1-weighted, breath-hold, fast low-angle shot sequences were made in 22 patients in resting and straining states in the supine position before and after administration of oral paramagnetic contrast. Twelve patients received polyethylene glycol solution in addition to contrast, and 10 received contrast only. The pubococcygeal line was the reference used for diagnostic measurements. The quality of each sequence was graded. Paired t test, chi-square test, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were applied for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: The results of noncontrast images were inconclusive. There was a statistically significant difference between MR imaging diagnosis of rectocele in patients in the straining position without and with contrast ( p < 0.05), and the difference was more prominent in patients using polyethylene glycol solution ( p < 0.001). Using oral contrast plus polyethylene glycol produced significantly better MR examinations in the resting and straining positions ( p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The combination of oral contrast and polyethylene glycol solution improves the diagnostic value of MR rectography and is particularly useful when noncontrast examinations are inconclusive.