Abdominal imaging · 1995
The role of carbon dioxide and atmospheric air in double-contrast barium enema.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Skovgaard N, Sloth C, von Benzon E, Jensen G S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient discomfort 0-24 h after double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) was investigated in two ways.
METHODS: In part 1, 139 patients, not previously informed, were contacted by telephone to assess symptom rates without bias. In part 2, designed as a prospective randomized double-blind trial, the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) as an insufflating gas was compared with conventional atmospheric air (AA).
RESULTS: Part 1: 10% experienced severe abdominal pain, and 18% severe abdominal distention. Part 2: Low discomfort rates were found for both severe pain (7% for AA vs. 2% for CO2) and severe distention (13% for AA vs. 8% for CO2); the differences were not significant. In both parts of the study, female patients with a history of abdominal discomfort of "colon irritable" type were significantly overrepresented in the severely symptomatic groups. Equal numbers of patients experiencing severe abdominal distention for the first time were found in both the AA and CO2 groups, ruling out AA as the sole cause of these symptoms.
CONCLUSION: Abdominal post-DCBE discomfort seems to be less frequent than previously reported and is not effectively eliminated by CO2. We still find the use of AA in DCBEs justified.
METHODS: In part 1, 139 patients, not previously informed, were contacted by telephone to assess symptom rates without bias. In part 2, designed as a prospective randomized double-blind trial, the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) as an insufflating gas was compared with conventional atmospheric air (AA).
RESULTS: Part 1: 10% experienced severe abdominal pain, and 18% severe abdominal distention. Part 2: Low discomfort rates were found for both severe pain (7% for AA vs. 2% for CO2) and severe distention (13% for AA vs. 8% for CO2); the differences were not significant. In both parts of the study, female patients with a history of abdominal discomfort of "colon irritable" type were significantly overrepresented in the severely symptomatic groups. Equal numbers of patients experiencing severe abdominal distention for the first time were found in both the AA and CO2 groups, ruling out AA as the sole cause of these symptoms.
CONCLUSION: Abdominal post-DCBE discomfort seems to be less frequent than previously reported and is not effectively eliminated by CO2. We still find the use of AA in DCBEs justified.