Utility of whole gut transit scintigraphy in patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms

Balan, Kottekkattu; Alwis, Lankanatha; Sonoda, Luke; Pawaroo, Davina; Parry-Jones, D. R.; Middleton, Stephen

doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e328335e5a9

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, several newer diagnostic tools have become available for the evaluation of small bowel motility and could be an alternative to small bowel manometry, an invasive test with limited availability 31 . The identification of delayed scintigraphic small bowel transit time alters initial diagnosis and clinical management 32 . However, nominative data are limited for scintigraphy and include wide ranges.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prognostic yield of esophageal manometry in chronic intestinal pseudo‐obstruction: a retrospective cohort of 116 adult patients

Amiot

Joly

Cazals–Hatem

et al. 2012

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…31 The identification of delayed scintigraphic small bowel transit time alters initial diagnosis and clinical management. 32 However, nominative data are limited for scintigraphy and include wide ranges. Consequently, only extreme values can be considered as abnormal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic yield of esophageal manometry in chronic intestinal pseudo‐obstruction: a retrospective cohort of 116 adult patients

Amiot

Joly

Cazals–Hatem

et al. 2012

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identification of delayed scintigraphic small bowel transit time has been shown to impact both initial diagnosis and clinical management (67), but data on clinical outcomes are limited. A confounder is that slow colonic transit delays small bowel transit; therefore scintigraphic small bowel transit time needs to be interpreted with caution in patients with delayed colonic transit or constipation (68).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Small Bowel Transitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for the Assessment of Small-Bowel and Colonic Transit

Szarka

Camilleri

2012

Seminars in Nuclear Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Bowel function was assessed objectively using the LARS score 33 , which has been validated as a robust clinical tool for quantification of the severity of bowel dysfunction after anterior resection. Patients were classified as having major LARS (score 30-42), minor LARS (score [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] or no LARS (score 0-20). Pertinent clinicopathological information was extracted from the medical records.…”

Section: Clinical Assessment Of Bowel Symptoms By Self-administered Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonic transit in patients after anterior resection: prospective, comparative study using single-photon emission CT/CT scintigraphy

Russo

Gladman

2020

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bowel dysfunction after anterior resection is well documented, but its pathophysiology remains poorly understood. No study has assessed whether postoperative variation in colonic transit contributes to symptoms. This study measured colonic transit using planar scintigraphy and single‐photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT in patients after anterior resection, stratified according to postoperative bowel function. Methods Symptoms were assessed using the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Following gallium‐67 ingestion, scintigraphy was performed at predefined time points. Nine regions of interest were defined, and geometric centre (GC), percentage isotope retained, GC velocity index and colonic half‐clearance time (T½) determined. Transit parameters were compared between subgroups based on LARS score using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Results Fifty patients (37 men; median age 72·6 (range 44·4–87·7) years) underwent planar and SPECT scintigraphy. Overall, 17 patients had major and nine had minor LARS; 24 did not have LARS. There were significant differences in transit profiles between patients with major LARs and those without LARS: GCs were greater (median 5·94 (range 2·35–7·72) versus 4·30 (2·12–6·47) at 32 h; P = 0·015); the percentage retained isotope was lower (median 53·8 (range 6·5–100) versus 89·9 (38·4–100) per cent at 32 h; P = 0·002); GC velocity indices were greater (median 1·70 (range 1·18–1·92) versus 1·45 (0·98–1·80); P = 0·013); and T½ was shorter (median 38·3 (17·0–65·0) versus 57·0 (32·1–160·0) h; P = 0·003). Percentage tracer retained at 32 h best discriminated major LARS from no LARS (area under curve (AUC) 0·828). Conclusion Patients with major LARS had accelerated colonic transit compared with those without LARS, which may help explain postoperative bowel dysfunction in this group. The percentage tracer retained at 32 h had the greatest AUC value in discriminating such patients.

show abstract

Utility of whole gut transit scintigraphy in patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Prognostic yield of esophageal manometry in chronic intestinal pseudo‐obstruction: a retrospective cohort of 116 adult patients

Prognostic yield of esophageal manometry in chronic intestinal pseudo‐obstruction: a retrospective cohort of 116 adult patients

Methods for the Assessment of Small-Bowel and Colonic Transit

Colonic transit in patients after anterior resection: prospective, comparative study using single-photon emission CT/CT scintigraphy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About