[Double blinded prospective study of usefulness of bowel preparation on outpatients before intravenous urography.].
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to examine whether or not a bowel preparation should be administered prior to intravenous urography (IVU) on outpatients at the Reykjavik Hospital.


METHODS
In a period of seven months 89 outpatients remitted to IVU were randomly divided into two groups, A and B. Patients in group A went through bowel preparation before the investigation but patients in group B did not. The patients in group B were asked to consume only fluids, beginning the evening before the investigation. Five patients were excluded from the study. The remaining 84 patients were equally divided between groups A and B. Before the investigation all patients in both groups were asked to fill out a questionnaire giving their reactions to the preparation procedure. Three experienced radiologists performed image interpretation. Delineation of the urinary system, diagnostic ability and quality of cleansing were judged. The study was prospective and double blinded. The same type of contrast media, the same dose and the same type of film were used each time. A comparison of results between the two groups was carried out.


RESULTS
The age distribution was the same for both groups. Most of the patients in group A (76%) experienced the cleansing procedure as uncomfortable and 12% as awful. In group B most of the patients felt the preparation was comfortable. No one in group B said that the preparation was uncomfortable. There was no difference between the groups according to delineation of the urinary system except for the urinary bladder, where the delineation was judged to be worse in group B. Air in the bowel was the main disturbing factor in group A, but both air and faeces in group B. The quality of cleansing was judged to be better in group A. There was no difference between the groups in terms of diagnostic ability.


CONCLUSIONS
Bowel preparation on outpatients before IVU causes discomfort to the patients and does not improve the quality of the results.
Thorstensen
O
O
Davidsdottir
S
S
Sigurjonsson
K
K
Arnadottir
E
E
Hallgrimsson
P
P