Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology · 2009
Abdominal ultrasound after colonoscopy with insufflation of carbon dioxide versus air.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Erchinger Friedemann, Dimcevski Georg, Gilja Odd Helge, Hausken Trygve
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the use of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) compared with air insufflation during colonoscopy improves ultrasonography after the procedure.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 30 patients were randomized to insufflation with CO(2) or air. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy abdominal ultrasound was performed. Immediately after ultrasonography, the ultrasound quality of the liver, gallbladder, biliary ducts, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, abdominal vessels, antrum, bowel, urinary bladder and prostate/uterus was evaluated for optimal ultrasound scanning quality, minor reduction of scanning conditions, major reduction of scanning conditions and unacceptable scanning conditions.
RESULTS: Ultrasound quality 30 min after colonoscopy was significantly better when using CO(2) insufflation instead of air (p<0.003). Significant improvement in imaging quality was observed for the liver, portal vein, splenic vein, all three divisions of the pancreas, aorta, coeliac trunk, superior mesenteric artery, iliac vessels, left kidney and uterus.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound investigation can be done after a colonoscopy with CO(2) insufflation, whereas it is not recommended after a colonoscopy with air insufflation. In selected cases, this approach may enable and improve post-colonoscopy ultrasound scanning.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 30 patients were randomized to insufflation with CO(2) or air. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy abdominal ultrasound was performed. Immediately after ultrasonography, the ultrasound quality of the liver, gallbladder, biliary ducts, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, abdominal vessels, antrum, bowel, urinary bladder and prostate/uterus was evaluated for optimal ultrasound scanning quality, minor reduction of scanning conditions, major reduction of scanning conditions and unacceptable scanning conditions.
RESULTS: Ultrasound quality 30 min after colonoscopy was significantly better when using CO(2) insufflation instead of air (p<0.003). Significant improvement in imaging quality was observed for the liver, portal vein, splenic vein, all three divisions of the pancreas, aorta, coeliac trunk, superior mesenteric artery, iliac vessels, left kidney and uterus.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound investigation can be done after a colonoscopy with CO(2) insufflation, whereas it is not recommended after a colonoscopy with air insufflation. In selected cases, this approach may enable and improve post-colonoscopy ultrasound scanning.