Objective: To compare a 2 day bowel preparation regime of barium, iodine and a mild stimulant laxative with a 1 day iodine-only regime for CT colonography (CTC). Methods: 100 consecutive patients underwent CTC. The first 50 patients (Regime 1) ingested 1 bisacodyl tablet twice a day 3 days before CTC and 1 dose each of 50 ml of barium and 20 ml of iodinated contrast per day starting 2 days before CTC. The second 50 patients (Regime 2) ingested 3 doses of iodinated contrast over 24 h prior to CTC. Volumes of residual stool and fluid, and the effectiveness of stool and fluid tagging, were graded according to methods established by Taylor et al (Taylor S, Slaker A, Burling D, Tam E, Greenhalgh R, Gartner L, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 32-42). A 3 day low-residue diet was taken by both cohorts. Questionnaires rating the side-effects and burden of the bowel preparation were compared to a control cohort of patients undergoing barium enema. Results: The proportion of colons producing none/scattered stool (score 1) was 90.3% with Regime 1 and 65.0% with Regime 2 (p,0.005). Any residual stool was significantly better tagged with Regime 1 (score 5), with 91.7% of Regime 1 exhibiting optimum tagging vs 71.3% of Regime 2 (p,0.05). No significant differences in side-effects between the bowel preparation regimes for CTC were elicited. Bowel preparation for barium enema was tolerated significantly worse than both of the CTC bowel preparation regimes. Conclusion: Regime 1, containing a 3 day preparation of a mild laxative, barium and iodine, produced a significantly better prepared colon, with no difference in patient acceptability.

These findings suggest that use of EBUS grey-scale textural analysis for differentiation of malignant from benign lymphadenopathy may not be accurate. Further studies are required.

Objective: To assess the palatability of iodinated oral contrast media commonly used in abdominopelvic CT and CT colonography (CTC).Methods: 80 volunteers assessed the palatability of a 20-ml sample of a standard 30 mg ml 21 dilution of Omnipaque® (iohexol; GE Healthcare, Cork, Ireland), Telebrix® (meglumine ioxithalamate; Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France), Gastromiro® (iopamidol; Bracco, High Wycombe, UK) and Gastrografin® (sodium diatrizoate and meglumine diatrizoate; Bayer, Newbury, UK) in a computer-generated random order.Results: Gastrografin is rated significantly less palatable than the remaining media (p,0.005). Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than Gastromiro.No difference existed between Omnipaque and Telebrix. 39% of participants would refuse to consume the quantities of Gastrografin required for a CTC examination compared with Telebrix (7%) and Omnipaque (9%) (p,0.05). Conclusion:Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, with participants more willing to ingest them in larger quantities as well as being less expensive. Advances in knowledge:Omnipaque and Telebrix are significantly more palatable iodinated oral contrast media than both Gastromiro and Gastrografin, which has potential implications in compliance with both abdominopelvic CT and CTC.

This multicentre study aimed to assess compliance of the reporting environment with best ergonomic practice and to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms related to working as a radiologist. All 148 radiology trainees and consultants in 10 hospitals across the region were invited to complete a musculoskeletal symptoms and reporting ergonomics questionnaire. Best ergonomic reporting practice was defined, following literature review, as being able to alter the following: monitor, desk, chair and armrest height, chair back support, ambient light, and temperature. The frequency that these facilities were available and how often they were used was determined. One hundred and twenty-three out of 148 (83 %) radiologists responded, and 38 % reported radiologyassociated occupational injury. Lower back discomfort was the commonest radiology associated musculoskeletal symptom (41 %). Only 13 % of those with occupational injury sought the advice of occupational health. No reporting environments conformed completely to best ergonomic practice. Where certain facilities were available, less than a third of radiologists made personal ergonomic adjustments prior to starting a reporting session. Radiologists who had good selfassessed knowledge of best ergonomic practice had significantly less back discomfort than those with poor self-assessed knowledge (P <0.005). We demonstrated high prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms amongst radiologists. Poor compliance of the reporting environment with best ergonomic practice, in combination with our other findings of a low level of ergonomic awareness, low rates of making ergonomic adjustments and seeking appropriate help, may be implicated. We hope this study raises awareness of this issue and helps prevent long-term occupational injury amongst radiologists from poor ergonomic practice.