Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The double contrast enema in ulcerative and Crohn's colitis

1976; Elsevier BV; Volume: 27; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0009-9260(76)80030-x

1365-229X

Gerald Fraser, Jacqueline Findlay,

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

One hundred double contrast enema examinations using a colonic activator (veripaque) in the preliminary cleansing enema and 51 conventional barium enema examinations without a preliminary veripaque enema have been performed on 94 patients with either ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease of the colon. The severity of the disease at barium enema examination has been graded and compared with the severity of the disease found at sigmoidoscopy. In the double contrast examination, there was agreement between the radiological and sigmoidoscopic findings in 77% of cases and a disagreement of one grade in the remaining 23% of cases. The double contrast enema demonstrated lesions in the colon proximal to the range of the sigmoidoscope of a greater severity than that seen at sigmoidoscopy in 30% of cases. It was not found possible to use the same grading method with the conventional enema, and unless frank ulceration is present, it is considered that the conventional enema is unreliable in assessing the state of the colonic mucosa. It is concluded that the double contrast enema, using a colonic activator in the preliminary cleansing enema, causes no greater risk of complications than either the conventional enema or sigmoidoscopy. One hundred double contrast enema examinations using a colonic activator (veripaque) in the preliminary cleansing enema and 51 conventional barium enema examinations without a preliminary veripaque enema have been performed on 94 patients with either ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease of the colon. The severity of the disease at barium enema examination has been graded and compared with the severity of the disease found at sigmoidoscopy. In the double contrast examination, there was agreement between the radiological and sigmoidoscopic findings in 77% of cases and a disagreement of one grade in the remaining 23% of cases. The double contrast enema demonstrated lesions in the colon proximal to the range of the sigmoidoscope of a greater severity than that seen at sigmoidoscopy in 30% of cases. It was not found possible to use the same grading method with the conventional enema, and unless frank ulceration is present, it is considered that the conventional enema is unreliable in assessing the state of the colonic mucosa. It is concluded that the double contrast enema, using a colonic activator in the preliminary cleansing enema, causes no greater risk of complications than either the conventional enema or sigmoidoscopy.