Hydrocolonic ultrasonography in the detection of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1127 @entity5 @entity14 @entity1586
BACKGROUND: Hydrocolonic ultrasonography--abdominal ultrasonography in conjunction with the retrograde instillation of water into the colon--has been advocated as an alternative to colonoscopy for detecting @entity14 . We conducted a prospective, blinded trial to evaluate the procedure further. METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive @entity1 (50 @entity1 and 2 @entity1 ; average age, 62 years) who were referred for colonoscopy underwent hydrocolonic ultrasonography followed by colonoscopy. The physicians performing colonoscopy were blinded to the ultrasound results. @entity1 who had a history of @entity1586 or who had previously undergone flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-two @entity1 had normal results on colonoscopy, 26 had @entity1127 , 3 had @entity5 and @entity1127 , and 1 had @entity5 alone. Twenty @entity1 had @entity1127 less than 7 mm in diameter, eight had @entity1127 7 mm or more in diameter, and one had a @entity1127 of unknown size. Hydrocolonic ultrasonography did not detect any @entity5 and detected only one @entity1127 > or = 7 mm and one @entity1127 < 7 mm in diameter. The overall sensitivity of ultrasonography for identifying any @entity1127 was 6.9 percent, and for identifying a @entity1127 > or = 7 mm, it was 12.5 percent. Ultrasonography suggested the presence of five masses and five @entity1127 that were not confirmed by colonoscopy. Six @entity1 had incomplete ultrasound studies because of discomfort or the inability to retain water. There were two complications: one @entity1 had two vasovagal episodes, and another had diaphoresis. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocolonic ultrasonography was less useful than colonoscopy for detecting @entity14 . The usefulness of the technique in screening for @entity1586 appears to be limited.
