16.11.2014 Views

programma & abstracts - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie

programma & abstracts - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie

programma & abstracts - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Radiologie

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6<br />

<strong>programma</strong> <strong>abstracts</strong> & <strong>abstracts</strong><br />

O6.5<br />

MR-COLONOGRAPHY WITH IODINE-<br />

TAGGED LIMITED BOWEL PREPARATION<br />

AND AUTOMATED CARBON DIOXIDE<br />

INSUFFLATION FOR COLONIC DISTENSION<br />

M.P. van der Paardt, F.M. Zijta, T.N. Boellaard, S. Bipat,<br />

A.J. Nederveen, J. Stoker<br />

Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam<br />

Introduction: To prospectively evaluate image quality and<br />

diagnostic accuracy of 3.0Tesla MR-colonography using<br />

iodine-tagged preparation and CO2 for bowel distension.<br />

Methods: 40 patients at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma<br />

underwent 3.0Tesla MR-colonography using iodinetagged<br />

bowel preparation and automated CO2 insufflation.<br />

Coronal FS 3D-T1-weighted SPGR were acquired in supine<br />

and prone position, 2D-T2-weighted SSFSE in supine<br />

position. Five parameters (Table) were assessed by two<br />

observers for 6 colon segments (240 segments/observer,<br />

480 segments/sequence). Wilcoxon-signed-rank test was<br />

used for comparison. MR-colonography results were compared<br />

with colonoscopy and sensitivity/specificity were<br />

assessed.<br />

Results: The amount of fecal residue was rated ‘0-25%<br />

of lumen filled’ in 66.9%(321/480) of the images. Overall,<br />

the consistency of the residue was scored ‘liquid’;<br />

93.3%(448/480).<br />

Supine distension was ‘adequate’ to ‘optimal’ in<br />

89.2%(428/480) segments on T1-weighted images<br />

and 90.4%(427/472; 8 missing values) on T2-weighted<br />

series. In the T1-weighted series distension was better in<br />

supine compared to prone position: 89.2%(428/480) versus<br />

74.1%(347/468; 12 missing values), p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!