La radiologia medica

, Volume 116, Issue 5, pp 749–758

A simplified approach to virtual colonoscopy using different intestinal preparations: preliminary experience with regard to quality, accuracy and patient acceptability

  • N. Faccioli
  • G. Foti
  • M. Barillari
  • A. Zaccarella
  • L. Camera
  • C. Biasiutti
  • R. Pozzi Mucelli
Abdominal Radiology / Radiologia Addominale



The authors assessed the quality, diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptability of computed tomography (CT) colonography performed using a simplified bowel preparation and software for post-processing digital elimination of stool and fluid data from images compared with the examination obtained with conventional preparation.

Materials and methods

Two groups of 40 consecutive asymptomatic patients aged between 48 and 72 years underwent CT colonography. In group A, the CT scan was performed with conventional bowel preparation (a full cathartic dose and oral contrast medium to tag any residue in the 3 days preceding the study). In the second group, CT colonography was performed after a reduced bowel preparation, with the oral contrast medium for residue tagging being administered only on the day of the investigation. Examination quality, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability (rated with a self-completed questionnaire) in the two groups of patients were compared by using the McNemar test.


No significant difference was obtained with regard to examination quality (180 vs. 165 segments free from stools and fluid, p>0.05) and overall diagnostic accuracy (16/17 colonic polyps detected in group A and 12/13 in group B, p>0.05). The questionnaires revealed a greater acceptability of the reduced bowel preparation compared with the standard procedure (p=0.01).


In asymptomatic patients, the use of software for post-processing digital elimination of residue from images in conjunction with reduced bowel preparation does not reduce examination quality or diagnostic performance when compared with the conventional CT colonography technique and is more acceptable to and better tolerated by the patient.


Virtual colonoscopy CT colonography Imaging technique Acceptability 

Approccio semplificato alla colonscopia virtuale mediante differenti preparazioni intestinali: esperienza preliminare riguardo qualità, performance ed accettabilità



Scopo del nostro lavoro è stato valutare qualità d’esame, performance diagnostica ed accettabilità da parte del paziente della colonscopia virtuale con tomografia computerizzata (colon-TC) dopo preparazione intestinale semplificata, mediante utilizzo del software di sottrazione dei residui colici, a confronto con l’esame ottenuto mediante preparazione convenzionale.

Materiali e metodi

Due gruppi di 40 pazienti asintomatici consecutivi, di età fra i 48 ed i 72 anni, sono stati sottoposti a colon-TC: nel gruppo A l’esame TC è stato eseguito con preparazione intestinale convenzionale (catartico a piena dose e mezzo di contrasto orale per la marcatura dei residui nei 3 giorni precedenti l’indagine); il secondo gruppo ha eseguito la colon-TC dopo preparazione intestinale ridotta con somministrazione orale di contrasto per la marcatura dei residui solo il giorno dell’indagine. Mediante il test di McNemar sono state confrontate qualità d’esame, performance diagnostica ed accettabilità (mediante questionario autocompilativo) degli esami nei due gruppi di pazienti.


Si è ottenuta una differenza non significativa per quanto concerne qualità d’esame (180 vs. 165 segmenti liberi da feci e liquidi, p>0,05) e performance diagnostica globale (16/17 polipi nel gruppo A; 12/13 nel gruppo B, p>0,05). Dai questionari è emersa una maggiore accettabilità della preparazione intestinale parziale rispetto a quella standard (p=0,01).


In pazienti asintomatici, l’utilizzo di un software per la sottrazione di liquidi in concomitanza ad una ridotta preparazione intestinale, non comporta una riduzione di qualità e performance diagnostica rispetto alla tecnica colon-TC tradizionale, mentre risulta più accettabile e meglio tollerato da parte del paziente.

Parole chiave

Colon-TC Tecnica di esame Accettabilità 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D et al (2010) Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 60:99–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McFarland EG, Fletcher JG, Pickhardt P et al (2009) ACR Colon Cancer Committee white paper: status of CT colonography 2009. American College of Radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 6:756–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR et al (2005) CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Working Group on Virtual Colonoscopy. Radiology 236:3–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shinya H, Wolff WI (1979) Morphologhy, anatomic distribution and cancer potential of colonic polyps. Ann Surg 190:679–683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin OS (2010) Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype? World J Gastroenterol 16:915–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neri E, Vagli P, Turini F et al (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of CT colonography in patients with positive faecal occult blood test: results of the Italian project Lega tumori 2003–2006. Radiol Med 114:586–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neri E, Laghi A, Regge D et al (2008) CT colonography: Project of High National Interest No. 2005062137 of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR). Radiol Med 113:1126–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 23:2191–2200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291:1713–1719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P et al (2007) Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 32:96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic preparation: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J et al (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, De Vries AH et al (2010) Low-fiber diet in limited bowel preparation for CT colonography: influence on image quality and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J et al (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial resultspolyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ et al (2000) Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 216:704–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:1300–1311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guerrisi A, Marin D, Laghi A et al (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of translucency rendering to differentiate polyps from pseudopolyps at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a feasibility study. Radiol Med 115:758–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C et al (2006) Tagging based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P et al (2007) European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 17:575–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN et al (2008) CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 18:32–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neri E, Turini F, Cerri F et al (2009) CT colonography: same-day tagging regimen with iodixanol and reduced cathartic preparation. Abdom Imaging 34:642–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eisenberg RL, Hedgcock MW, Shanser JD et al (1979) Iodine absorption from the gastrointestinal tract during hypaque-enema examination. Radiology 133:597–599PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Faccioli
    • 1
  • G. Foti
    • 1
  • M. Barillari
    • 1
  • A. Zaccarella
    • 1
  • L. Camera
    • 1
  • C. Biasiutti
    • 1
  • R. Pozzi Mucelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Radiology, Policlinico G.B. RossiUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations