title: Assessment of 3 Bowel Preparation Protocols for Computed Tomography Pneumocolonography in Normal Dogs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the effects of 3 different bowel preparation protocols on interpretation of computed tomography (CT) pneumocolonography images.
  
  
  METHODS
  Experimental crossover design.
  
  
  METHODS
  Intact male, hound-cross, research colony dogs (n=4).
  
  
  METHODS
  All dogs received the 3 different bowel preparation protocols for CT pneumocolonography in the same order, with a minimum of 2 weeks between protocols. For each segment of large bowel, the subjective adequacy of bowel cleansing was assessed, residual fecal and bowel volumes were calculated, and the density of fecal material in the bowel lumen was measured. Linear mixed effect models that included a random dog effect were used to evaluate mean differences in outcome measures across protocols.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No dogs experienced any clinical problems associated with the protocols or CT pneumocolonography. Bowel cleansing was considered adequate for CT pneumocolonography interpretation for all 3 protocols. There was a significant effect of protocol on residual fecal volumes and the fecal:bowel volume ratio, with the 2 protocols that included an extended fast producing the lowest total residual fecal volumes. There was a significant effect of protocol on maximum measured density of residual fecal material with the 2 protocols including iodinated contrast having the highest density.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  All protocols were sufficient for CT pneumocolonography interpretation and contrast-tagging of residual fecal material was successful with oral iopamidol administration. An at-home bowel cleansing protocol may provide adequate bowel cleansing for CT pneumocolonography image interpretation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California. masteffey@ucdavis.edu.
authors.forename: Michele A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Steffey
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
authors.forename: Allison L
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8982-2558
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Zwingenberger
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
authors.forename: Leticia
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Daniel
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
authors.forename: Sandra L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D000284:Administration, Oral; D000818:Animals; D003106:Colon / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D023881:Colonography, Computed Tomographic / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary*; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004285:Dogs; D005243:Feces; D007479:Iopamidol / Q000008:administration & dosage; D008297:Male; D010710:Phosphates / Q000008:administration & dosage
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D010710:Phosphates; D007479:Iopamidol; C018279:sodium phosphate