Köpek ve kedilerde gastrointestinal radyografide lohexol'un baryum sülfat ve Na-meglumin diatriozat ile karşılaştırılması

Comparison of lohexol with barium sulfate and Na-Meglumine diatriozate in gastrointestinal radiography of dogs and cats

In this study, 30% suspension of barium sulfate (BS) and 1/1 and 1/3 dilated solutions of Na-meglumine diatriozate (NMD) and iohexol (IO) were administered via the naso-gastric trackt to 3 dogs and 3 cats in two different doses, i.e. 5 ml/kg (lower dose) and 10 ml/kg (higher dose). Each application was repeated at 1-week intervals. Radiographs were taken prior to, and at certain intervals after, contract medium (CM) applications. According to the radiographs taken from the BS groups, CM was determined to be distributed unevenly in the stomach and to have a localized and segmented appearance in both the small and large intestines. In NMD groups, the radiographic (image) qualities of the stomach and large intestines were observed to be greater than those of the small intestine. The radiographic qualities of IO groups were superior in all aspects to those of BS and NMD groups. When the data obtained from all CMs were evaluated together, the filling and emptying times of the stomach and the small and large intestines were found be significantly slower (P0.05) between the last two CMs. Regarding these parameters, there was no difference (P>0.05) between the various dilation rates of these CMs. Despite the statistically non-significant difference (P>0.05) the GIS transit times were longer in the higher doses of CMs than in the lower ones. Gastrointestinal system (GIS) transit speeds of CMs were found to be faster in cats than in dogs. When the results of all CMs used in this study were evaluated in total, it could be readily seen that each CM had different degrees of benefits as well as limitations. Therefore, it was suggested that prior to selecting a CM as a GIS contrast medium, the relationship between the complexity of the suspected pathological lesion and the potential benefits of one of these chosen CMs should be well established.

PDF

___

1. Herrtage, M.E., Dennis, R.: Contrast media and techniques. In: Maual of Small Animal Diagnostic Imaging. Lee, R. (Ed.), BSAVA, Gloucestershire, 1995; pp 147-157.
2. Lamb,C.R.: Recent developments in diagnostic imaging of the gastrointestinal tract of the dog and cat. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Ani. Prac. 1999; 29(2): 307-342.
3. Güzel, N., Yavru, N.: Radyografide kontrast maddelerin kullanımı. 1. Küçük hayvanlarda (kedi, Köpek) gastrointestinal sistem indirekt radyografisi. A. Ü. Vet. Fak. Der. 1984; 31(1): 66-76.
4. Alkan, Z.: Veteriner Radyoloji. Mina Ajans Mat., Ankara, 1999; sf 156-165, 224-250.
5. Özaydın, İ., Okumuş, Z., Baran, V., Kılıç, E.: Köpeklerde sodyum ve meglumine ioxitalamate ile gastrointestinal radyografi. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg., 1995; 1(1-2): 89-95.
6. Laerum, F., Stordahl, A., Aase, S.: Water-soluble contrast media compared with barium in enteric follow-through local effects and radiographic efficacy in rats with simple obstruction of the small bowel. Acta. Radiol. 1988; 25(5): 603-610.
7. Stordahl, A., Laerum, F.: Comparison of water-soluble contrast media and barium in rats with small bowel obstruction or ischemia. Invest. Radiol. 1988; 23(1): 220-223.
8. Stordahl, A., Laerum, F., Gjolberg, T., Enge, I.: Water-soluble contrast media in radiography of small bowel obstruction. Comparison of ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Acta. Radiol. 1988; 29(1): 53-56.
9. Cohen, M.D.: Choosing contrast media for pediatric gastrointestinal examinations. Crit. Rev. Diagn. Imaging. 1990; 30(4): 317-340.
10. Holland, M.: Contrast agent. Vet. Clin. North Am. Small Ani. Prac. 1993; 23(2): 269-279.
11. Murciano, J., Agut, A., Sanchezvalverde, M.A., Laredo, F.G., Tovar, M.C.: Local and systemic effects of water-soluble contrast media and barium in rats with chronic small bowel obstruction. Invest. Radiol. 1995; 30(11): 683-689.
12. İzci, C., Kıran, M.M., Ödev, K., Koç, Y., Kul, M.: İyonik ve noniyonik kontrast maddelerin vasküler endotelyum üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak araştırılması. Vet. Cerrahi Derg., 1995; 1(1): 15-19.
13. Stordahl, A.: Water-soluble contrast media in obstructed ischemic small intestine. A clinical and experimental study. J. Oslo City Hosp. 1989; 39(1-2): 3-22.
14. Schebitz, H., Wilkens, H.: Atlas of radioghaphic anatomy of the dog and cat. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, 1986.
15. Williams, J., Biller, D.S., Myer, C.W., Miyabayashi, T., Leveille, R.: Use of iohexol as a gastrointestinal contrast agent in three dogs, five cats and one bird. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1993; 202(4): 624-627
16. Williams, J., Biller, D.S., Miyabayashi, T., Leveille, R.: Evaluation of iohexol as a gastrointestinal contrast medium in normal cats. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound. 1993; 34(5): 310-314.
17. Agut, A., Sanchezvalverde, M.A., Lasaosa, J.M., Murciano, J., Molina, F.: Use of iohexol as a gastrointestinal contrast medium in the dog. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound. 1993; 34(3): 171-177.
18. Agut, A., Sanchezvalverde, M.A., Torrecillas, F.E., Murciano, J., Laredo, F.G.: Iohexol as a gastrointestinal contrast medium in the cat. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasound. 1994; 35(3): 164-168.
19. Stordahl, A., Laerum, F., Lunde, O.C., Aase, S.: The effects of water-soluble contrast media on luminal distension and blood flow in closed loops of small bowel in minipigs. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1988; 23(8): 991-999.
20. Dennis, R., Herrtage, M.E.: Low osmolar contrast media- a review. Vet. Rec. 1989; 30: 2-12.
21. Herrtage, M.E., Dennis, R.: Contrast media and their use in small animal radiology. J. Small Anim. Pract. 1987; 28: 1105-1114.