Evaluation of neutral oral contrast agents for assessment of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT

Autoři: Till F. Kaireit aff001;  Carolin Huisinga aff001;  Matti Peperhove aff001;  Frank Wacker aff001;  Kristina I. Ringe aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225160



Although neutral oral contrast agents are widely in use, a consensus regarding a standardized protocol in abdominal staging CT does not exist.


To test the null hypothesis that there is no quantitative or qualitative difference between water and mannitol for evaluation of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT.

Material and methods

180 patients prospectively underwent abdominal staging CT with oral administration of either 1 liter mannitol solution (n = 88) or water (n = 92). Intestinal distension was measured in 6 different segments of the small intestine. In addition, two radiologists separately evaluated diagnostic image quality with regards to luminal distension (three-point scale) in each segment and the possibility to rule out a possible underlying pathology. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared (Mann-Whitney test).


Quantitatively, intestinal distension was comparable in all segments (p>0.05), except for the horizontal duodenum (p = 0.019). The mean luminal diameter over all intestinal segments was 19.0 mm (18.1–19.9 mm) for the water group and 18.4 mm (17.5–19.2 mm) for the mannitol group, respectively. Qualitatively, ratings were comparable for the first three segments, while distal segments were rated better using mannitol. Side effects were only observed using mannitol (n = 26; 29.5%).


Orally administered water and mannitol solution for evaluation of the small bowel at abdominal staging CT in clinical routine resulted in comparable results for the quantitative, but not for the qualitative analysis. Looking more differentiated at the overall performance, water has advantages in terms of patient comfort, side effects and costs, and can therefore be regarded as noninferior to mannitol in this specific patient group.

Klíčová slova:

Computed axial tomography – Diagnostic medicine – duodenum – Gastrointestinal tract – Ileum – Jejunum – Mannitol – Oral administration


1. Diederichs G, Franiel T, Asbach P, Romano V, Hamm B, Rogalla P. Intravenöse Kontrastmittel oral appliziert: Eine wohlschmeckende Alternative zum herkömmlichen oralen Kontrastmittel in der Computertomografie. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2007;179: 1061–1067.

2. Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM, Cho JJ, Houston C, Boruch MM, et al. Evaluation of Bowel Distention and Bowel Wall Appearance by Using Neutral Oral Contrast Agent for Multi–Detector Row CT 1. Radiology. 2006;238: 87–95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381041985 16293806

3. Harieaswar S, Rajesh A, Griffin Y, Tyagi R, Morgan B. Routine Use of Positive Oral Contrast Material Is Not Required for Oncology Patients Undergoing Follow-up Multidetector CT 1. Radiology. 2009;250: 246–253. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2493080353 19092097

4. Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, Booya F, Young BM, Fidler JL, et al. CT Enterography as a Diagnostic Tool in Evaluating Small Bowel Disorders: Review of Clinical Experience with over 700 Cases1. RadioGraphics. 2006;26: 641–657. doi: 10.1148/rg.263055162 16702444

5. Guimarães LS, Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, Bruining DH, Huprich JE, Siddiki H, et al. Assessment of appropriateness of indications for CT enterography in younger patients. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16: 226–232. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21025 19637359

6. Hara AK, Alam S, Heigh RI, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG, Leighton JA. Using CT enterography to monitor Crohn’s disease activity: a preliminary study. AJR. 2008;190: 1512–1516. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2877 18492900

7. Reittner P, Goritschnig T, Petritsch W, Doerfler O, Preidler KW, Hinterleitner T, et al. Multiplanar spiral CT enterography in patients with Crohn’s disease using a negative oral contrast material: initial results of a noninvasive imaging approach. Eur Radiol. 2002;12: 2253–2257. doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1361-y 12195478

8. Shankar KR, Lloyd DA, Kitteringham L, Carty HM. Oral contrast with computed tomography in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma in children. Br J Surg. 1999;86: 1073–1077. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01192.x 10460648

9. Paparo F, Garlaschi A, Biscaldi E, Bacigalupo L, Cevasco L, Rollandi GA. Computed tomography of the bowel: A prospective comparison study between four techniques. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82: e1–e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.08.021 22999647

10. Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Sandborn WJ. Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: noninvasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy—feasibility study. Radiology. 2003;229: 275–281. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2291020877 12944602

11. Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mirk P, Bonomo L. CT enterography with polyethylene glycol solution vs CT enteroclysis in small bowel disease. BJR. 2011;84: 112–119. doi: 10.1259/bjr/71649888 20959377

12. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349: 2191–2200. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031618 14657426

13. Schunk K, Kern A, Heussel C-P, Kalden P, Orth T, Wanitschke R, et al. [Hydro-MRT with fast sequences in Crohn’s disease: a comparison with fractionated gastrointestinal passage]. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1999;170: 338–346. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1011051 10341791

14. Patak MA, Froehlich JM, Weymarn von C, Ritz MA, Zollikofer CL, Wentz K. Non-invasive distension of the small bowel for magnetic-resonance imaging. Lancet. 2001;358: 987–988. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06127-x 11583757

15. Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Iafrate F, Altomari F, Miglio C, Passariello R. Oral contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging of the bowel. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;13: 389–396. 12478019

16. Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, Herborn CU, Ruhm SG, Debatin JF. Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology. 2003;228: 279–283. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2281020161 12750457

17. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods. American Psychological Association; 1996;1: 30–46. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30

18. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-WHO Version. Geneva: WHO, 2016. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/II

19. Kammerer S, Höink AJ, Wessling J, Heinzow H, Koch R, Schuelke C, et al. Abdominal and pelvic CT: is positive enteric contrast still necessary? Results of a retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol. 2015;25: 669–678. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3446-9 25316055

20. Wittenberg J, Harisinghani MG, Jhaveri K, Varghese J, Mueller PR. Algorithmic approach to CT diagnosis of the abnormal bowel wall. RadioGraphics. 2002;22: 1093–109. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.22.5.g02se201093 12235339

21. Hebert JJ, Taylor AJ, Winter TC. Comparison of colonic transit between polyethylene glycol and water as oral contrast vehicles in the CT evaluation of acute appendicitis. AJR 2006;187: 1188–1191. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1073 17056904

22. Hebert JJ, Taylor AJ, Winter TC, Reichelderfer M, Weichert JP. Low-attenuation oral GI contrast agents in abdominal-pelvic computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31: 48–53. doi: 10.1007/s00261-005-0350-4 16252139

23. Angelelli G, Macarini L, Fratello A. Use of water as an oral contrast agent for CT study of the stomach. AJR. 1987;149: 1084–1084. doi: 10.2214/ajr.149.5.1084 3499789

24. Kong D-G, Hou Y-F, Ma L-L, Yao D-K, Wang L-X. Comparison of oral and intravenous hydration strategies for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography or angioplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Acta Cardiol. 2012;67: 565–569. doi: 10.2143/AC.67.5.2174131 23252007

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11