Bailey S R, Tyrrell P N, Hale M
X-ray Department, Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton.
Clin Radiol. 1991 Nov;44(5):335-7. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81271-1.
A randomized prospective trial was undertaken to compare the relative effectiveness of two commonly used bowel preparations (senna tablets and sodium picosulphate powder) administered to patients before they underwent out-patient intravenous urography. Their 'control' films were compared with plain 'kidneys, ureters, and bladder' (KUB) radiographs of patients who had had no bowel preparation. The results show no significant difference in the degree of faecal shadowing between those receiving a bowel preparation and the unprepared patients. Nor is there any difference between the two laxatives. We conclude that the routine administration of a bowel preparation is unlikely to improve the diagnostic quality of out-patient intravenous urograms. In addition, 40% of the urogram patients found the effects of the laxatives to be unpleasant or very unpleasant.
进行了一项随机前瞻性试验，以比较两种常用肠道准备药物（番泻叶片剂和比沙可啶钠粉末）在门诊患者进行静脉肾盂造影术前给药的相对有效性。将接受肠道准备患者的“对照”片与未进行肠道准备患者的普通“肾脏、输尿管和膀胱”（KUB）X光片进行比较。结果显示，接受肠道准备的患者与未准备患者之间的粪便阴影程度无显著差异。两种泻药之间也没有差异。我们得出结论，常规进行肠道准备不太可能提高门诊静脉肾盂造影的诊断质量。此外，40%的静脉肾盂造影患者认为泻药的效果令人不适或非常不适。
