TY - JOUR
T1 - Two-year audit of computed tomographic colonography in a teaching hospital
T2 - Are we meeting the standard?
AU - Grant, L. A.
AU - Griffin, Nyree
AU - Shaw, A.
PY - 2010/4
Y1 - 2010/4
N2 - Objective: We aimed to determine whether adopting the published recommendations has led to successful implementation of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in a teaching hospital setting outside the context of a clinical trial.
Method: An audit of all the CTC examinations between April 2005 and June 2007 was conducted to determine the following: adequacy of bowel preparation, CTC indications and findings (compared with available colonoscopy), complications and experience of reporting radiologist.
Results: The most common indications for the 111 CTC patients reviewed included exclusion of synchronous colonic tumours, incomplete colonoscopy and altered bowel habit. Only 16% of ascending colon/caecal segments was clear of faecal or fluid contamination. The rectum and sigmoid colon were free of contamination in 78% and 74% of cases respectively. Appropriately trained radiologists reported 91% of studies. Thirty-two percent of studies were normal. The most common positive findings were diverticular disease or a rectal tumour. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value were 89%, 94% and 90% respectively (all polyps) with a sensitivity of 98.5% for lesions > 5 mm in size. Twenty-five percent of patients had extra colonic abnormalities. There were no recorded complications.
Conclusion: Our CTC practice is within accepted published guidelines. Bowel preparation is suboptimal in a significant proportion of cases and faecal tagging is being implemented.
AB - Objective: We aimed to determine whether adopting the published recommendations has led to successful implementation of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in a teaching hospital setting outside the context of a clinical trial.
Method: An audit of all the CTC examinations between April 2005 and June 2007 was conducted to determine the following: adequacy of bowel preparation, CTC indications and findings (compared with available colonoscopy), complications and experience of reporting radiologist.
Results: The most common indications for the 111 CTC patients reviewed included exclusion of synchronous colonic tumours, incomplete colonoscopy and altered bowel habit. Only 16% of ascending colon/caecal segments was clear of faecal or fluid contamination. The rectum and sigmoid colon were free of contamination in 78% and 74% of cases respectively. Appropriately trained radiologists reported 91% of studies. Thirty-two percent of studies were normal. The most common positive findings were diverticular disease or a rectal tumour. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value were 89%, 94% and 90% respectively (all polyps) with a sensitivity of 98.5% for lesions > 5 mm in size. Twenty-five percent of patients had extra colonic abnormalities. There were no recorded complications.
Conclusion: Our CTC practice is within accepted published guidelines. Bowel preparation is suboptimal in a significant proportion of cases and faecal tagging is being implemented.
KW - Colon computed tomography
KW - Colonic disease computed tomography
KW - Computed tomography colonography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954371667&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01824.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01824.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 19292776
AN - SCOPUS:77954371667
SN - 1462-8910
VL - 12
SP - 373
EP - 379
JO - COLORECTAL DISEASE
JF - COLORECTAL DISEASE
IS - 4
ER -