Diagnostic imaging plays an important role in evaluating small bowel diseases.1 Gastrointestinal radiographic examinations with contrast agents have been used to detect morphological changes such as mechanical obstruction or an abnormal mucosal interface.2 Ultrasonography provides complementary information about wall thickness, wall layers, motility, and the appearance of adjacent structures.3,4 However, these imaging modalities have limitations such as the superimposition of abdominal structures for radiography or luminal gas artifacts for ultrasonography.3,4 Computed tomography has been used for routine examination of the gastrointestinal tract in humans because all gastrointestinal segments can be imaged without superimposition, which provides detailed in formation about extraintestinal abnormal conditions by use of multidetector CT at a rapid scan speed and high resolution.5–8 Computed tomographic examination of the small intestines requires adequate luminal distention to allow adequate evaluation of mural alterations because collapsed bowels can mask pathological wall thickening that may be related to inflammatory or neoplastic conditions.5–12 Pseudothickening of the wall of collapsed segments can also mimic pathological conditions.5–12 Thus, CT that involves oral administration of a large volume of contrast agent has been designed to distend the lumen for optimal visualization of the small intestines of humans. Computed tomography has also been used for examination of the gastrointestinal tract of dogs, but there are only a few reports13–15 of CT enterography of dogs.
The objective of the study reported here was to determine the necessity for luminal distention in the evaluation of the small intestines of dogs and to describe and optimize the techniques for CT enterography in clinically normal dogs. We hypothesized that the degree of luminal distention of the small intestines of dogs could be affected by variations in the methods for administration of contrast medium.
Presented at the 2014 Annual Scientific Conference of the American College of Veterinary Radiology, St Louis, October 2014.
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Merode, Dong Wha Pharm Corp, Seoul, Korea.
Pofol, Dongkook Corp, Seoul, Korea.
Terrell, Piramal Critical Care Inc, Bethlehem, Pa.
Duphalac syrup, JW Pharmaceutical Corp, Seoul, Korea.
Buscopan, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc, St Joseph, Mo.
GE LightSpeed 16, GE Healthcare, Fairfield, Conn.
SPSS for Windows, release 22.0, standard version, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill.
1. Brizi MG, Minordi L, Mirk P, et al. The state of the art of small bowel imaging: combine the old with the new. Rays 2002; 27: 51–65.
3. Penninck DG, Nyland TG, Fisher PE, et al. Ultrasonography of the normal canine gastrointestinal tract. Vet Radiol 1989; 30: 272–276.
4. Penninck DG, Nyland TG, Kerr LY, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of gastrointestinal diseases in small animals. Vet Radiol 1990; 31: 134–141.
5. Elsayes KM, Al-Hawary MM, Jagdish J, et al. CT enterography: principles, trends, and interpretation of findings. Radiographics 2010; 30: 1955–1970.
6. Macari M, Balthazar EJ. CT of bowel wall thickening: significance and pitfalls of interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 1105–1116.
7. Macari M, Megibow AJ, Balthazar EJ. A pattern approach to the abnormal small bowel: observations at MDCT and CT enterography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1344–1355.
8. Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, et al. CT Enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 2006; 26: 641–657.
9. Arslan H, Etlik O, Kayan M, et al. Peroral CT enterography with lactulose solution: preliminary observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 1173–1179.
10. Paparo F, Garlaschi A, Biscaldi E, et al. Computed tomography of the bowel: a prospective comparison study between four techniques. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:e1–e10.
11. Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, et al. Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: noninvasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy feasibility study. Radiology 2003; 229: 275–281.
12. Young BM, Fletcher JG, Booya F, et al. Head-to-head comparison of oral contrast agents for cross-sectional enterography: small bowel distention, timing, and side effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008; 32: 32–38.
13. Raptopoulos V, Davis M, Smith E. Imaging of the bowel wall. Computed tomography and fat density oral-contrast agent in an animal model. Invest Radiol 1986; 21: 847–850.
14. Terragni R, Vignoli M, Rossi F, et al. Stomach wall evaluation using helical hydro-computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2012; 53: 402–405.
15. Hoey S, Drees R, Hetzel S. Evaluation of the gastrointestinal tract in dogs using computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013; 54: 25–30.
16. Minowa O, Ozaki Y, Kyogoku S, et al. MR imaging of the small bowel using water as a contrast agent in a preliminary study with healthy volunteers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 581–582.
17. Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mirk P, et al. CT enterography with polyethylene glycol solution vs CT enteroclysis in small bowel disease. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 112–119.
20. Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, et al. Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 2003; 228: 279–283.
21. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, et al. Crohn disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast-enhanced CT enterography—correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 2006; 238: 505–516.
22. Kung CH, Wang HJ, Leung TK, et al. Depiction of bowel wall visualization and dilation in abdominopelvic MDCT: comparison of high-attenuation contrast medium, water and whole milk. J Exp Clin Med 2010; 2: 186–191.
23. Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM, et al. Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2006; 238: 87–95.
24. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Heigh RI, et al. Crohn disease of the small bowel: preliminary comparison among CT enterography, capsule endoscopy, small-bowel follow-through, and ileoscopy. Radiology 2006; 238: 128–134.
25. Colombel JF, Solem CA, Sandborn WJ, et al. Quantitative measurement and visual assessment of ileal Crohn's disease activity by computed tomography enterography: correlation with endoscopic severity and C reactive protein. Gut 2006; 55: 1561–1567.
26. Sagrada A, Schiavone A, Cefalá A, et al. N-butyl hyoscine exerts local spasmolytic effect in the small and large bowel of the conscious dog. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther 1987; 287: 237–247.