The purpose was to evaluate low-dose CT colonography without cathartic cleansing in terms of image quality, polyp visualization and patient acceptance. Sixty-one patients scheduled for colonoscopy started a low-fiber diet, lactulose and amidotrizoic-acid for fecal tagging 2 days prior to the CTscan (standard dose, 5.8-8.2 mSv). The original raw data of 51 patients were modified and reconstructed at simulated 2.3 and 0.7 mSv levels. Two observers evaluated the standard dose scan regarding image quality and polyps. A third evaluated the presence of polyps at all three mSv levels in a blinded prospective way. All observers were blinded to the reference standard: colonoscopy. At three times patients were given questionnaires relating to their experiences and preference. Image quality was sufficient in all patients, but significantly lower in the cecum, sigmoid and rectum. The two observers correctly identified respectively 10/15 (67%) and 9/15 (60%) polyps ≥10 mm, with 5 and 8 false-positive lesions (standard dose scan). Dose reduction down to 0.7 mSv was not associated with significant changes in diagnostic value (polyps ≥10 mm). Eighty percent of patients preferred CT colonography and 13% preferred colonoscopy (P<0.001). CT colonography without cleansing is preferred to colonoscopy and shows sufficient image quality and moderate sensitivity, without impaired diagnostic value at dose-levels as low as 0.7 mSv.
External phased-array MRI is comparable to endoanal MRI in depicting external anal sphincter atrophy and, thereby, in selecting patients for anal sphincter repair. Because results among interpreters varied considerably depending on the experience level, both techniques can be recommended in the diagnostic workup of fecal incontinence only if sufficient experience is available.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to retrospectively compare accuracy of single magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography series in Abduction External Rotation (ABER) with conventional MR arthrography for detection and characterisation of anteroinferior labroligamentous lesions, with arthroscopy as reference standard. Interobserver variability of both protocols was determined. Methods and materials Institutional review board approval was obtained; informed consent was waived. MR arthrograms, including oblique axial fat suppressed T1-weighted images in ABER position and conventional imaging directions of 250 patients (170 men, 80 women; mean age, 36 years), were retrospectively and independently evaluated by three reviewers. Reviewers were blinded to clinical information and arthroscopic results. Labroligamentous lesions were registered in both ABER and MRa. The lesions were sub-classified (Bankart, Perthes, anterior labrum periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA) or lesions not otherwise specified). Inter-observer agreement was assessed by Kappa statistics for all 250 patients. Ninety-two of 250 patients underwent arthroscopy. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ABER versus conventional MR arthrography were calculated and compared using paired McNemar test.Results Kappa values of the ABER and conventional MR arthrography ranged from 0.44 to 0.56 and 0.44 to 0.62, respectively. According to arthroscopy, 45 of 92 patients had an intact anteroinferior labrum, and in 44 patients, a labroligamentous lesion (eight Bankart, seven Perthes, 29 ALPSA and three lesions not otherwise specified) was diagnosed. There were no statistically significant differences between ABER and conventional MR arthrography regarding sensitivity (85-89%, 89-96%), specificity (82-91%, 84-89%) and overall accuracy (50-62%, 53-63%). Conclusion The results of a single MR arthrography series in ABER position are comparable with those of conventional MR arthrography for detecting anteroinferior labroligamentous lesions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.