Patient acceptance of magnetic resonance colonography: prospective comparison to conventional colonoscopy

被引:5
作者
Hartmann, D.
Bassler, B.
Pfeifer, B.
Eickhoff, A.
Weickert, U.
Riemann, J. F.
Layer, G.
机构
[1] Klinikum Stadt Ludwigshafen gGmbH, Med Klin C, D-67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany
[2] Klinikum Stadt Ludwigshafen gGmbH, Inst Diagnost & Interventionelle Radiol, D-67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany
关键词
MR colonography; colonoscopy; patient acceptance;
D O I
10.1055/s-2006-955043
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and objective: Precondition for establishment of magnetic resonance colonography (MRCG) as a diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer is not only high diagnostic accuracy but also a good acceptance amongst patients. The aim of this study was to compare post-examination appraisal of patients for MRCG to that of bowel preparation and conventional colonoscopy. Patients and methods: 88 patients (24 women, 64 men, mean age 67 +- 17,3 years) were interviewed by a standardized questionnaire regarding pain/discomfort (scale from 1 to 10), overall assessment of difficulties and preference for future tests. After bowel cleansing, MRCG and conventional colonoscopy were performed on the same day. Bowel cleansing consisted of drinking about 5 liters of a polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution. For MRCG the colon was filled with ca. 2000 ml of tap water. Imaging was performed with a 1.5T MR scanner in the prone position. Results: Most unpleasant for the patients was the preceding bowel preparation (70%), followed by colonoscopy (14%) and MRCG (8%). The preferred method was MRCG (58%) followed by colonoscopy (20,5%). The most unpleasant symptoms named by patients were the amount of oral electrolyte solution that had to be drunk (34%), abdominal pressure (25%), nausea (24%) because of bowel preparation, body positioning (25%) and rectal tube (13%) during MRCG, abdominal pressure (19%) and pain (18%) during colonoscopy. Conclusion: Patients' acceptance of MRCG indicates that it has a potential role as an additional diagnostic tool in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:2519 / 2523
页数:5
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology [J].
Ajaj, W ;
Pelster, G ;
Treichel, U ;
Vogt, FM ;
Debatin, JF ;
Ruehm, SG ;
Lauenstein, TC .
GUT, 2003, 52 (12) :1738-1743
[2]  
Angtuaco TL, 2001, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V96, P887
[3]  
Becker CR, 1998, RADIOLOGE, V38, P726, DOI 10.1007/s001170050416
[4]  
EICKHOFF A, 2002, GESUNDH OKON QUAL MA, V7, P232
[5]   What's new in colorectal cancer screening? [J].
Frommer, DJ .
JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 1998, 13 (05) :528-533
[6]   Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: Prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences [J].
Gluecker, TM ;
Johnson, CD ;
Harmsen, WS ;
Offord, KP ;
Harris, AM ;
Wilson, LA ;
Ahlquist, DA .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 227 (02) :378-384
[7]   Incomplete conventional colonoscopy: Magnetic resonance colonography in the evaluation of the proximal colon [J].
Hartmann, D ;
Bassler, B ;
Schilling, D ;
Pfeiffer, B ;
Jakobs, R ;
Eickhoff, A ;
Riemann, JF ;
Layer, G .
ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 37 (09) :816-820
[8]   Colorectal polyps: Detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy [J].
Hartmann, D ;
Bassler, B ;
Schilling, D ;
Adamek, HE ;
Jakobs, R ;
Pfeifer, B ;
Eickhoff, A ;
Zindel, C ;
Riemann, JF ;
Layer, G .
RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (01) :143-149
[9]   Detection of colorectal lesions: Lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonograph compared with conventional colonoscopy [J].
Iannaccone, R ;
Laghi, A ;
Catalano, C ;
Brink, JA ;
Mangiapane, F ;
Trenna, S ;
Piacentini, F ;
Passariello, R .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 229 (03) :775-781
[10]   State of the art of MR colonoscopy [J].
Lauenstein, TC ;
Rühm, SG ;
Debatin, JF .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2003, 175 (03) :334-341