查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Does MAGVAC Fare Better than Oral Dulcolax for Bowel Preparation before Intravenous Urography: A Double-Blind Randomized Study
- Evaluation of Gallstones by Ultrasonography, Oral Cholecystography and Computed Tomography
- External Gastrointestinal Fistula After the Advent of Total Parental Nutrition
- 複合式口服避孕藥和心臟血管疾病的關係
- 腰部局部熱敷對大鼠單根腎神經的影響
- Clinical Experience with Early Enteral Feeding in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants
- Cost-Effectiveness of Intravenous Urography and Abdominal Ultrasonography in Pre-operative Evaluation of Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
- 小兒居家靜脈營養及腸道營養治療
- Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Renal Pelvis with Extension into the Inferior Vena Cava: A Report of Two Cases
- 黃色肉芽腎盂腎炎
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Does MAGVAC Fare Better than Oral Dulcolax for Bowel Preparation before Intravenous Urography: A Double-Blind Randomized Study=MAGVAC比口服Dulcolax在靜脈腎盂造影術之腸道預備是否有較好的效果 |
---|---|
作 者 | 張世忠; 鄧子雲; | 書刊名 | 慈濟醫學 |
卷 期 | 4:3 1992.09[民81.09] |
頁 次 | 頁179-184 |
分類號 | 418.242 |
關鍵詞 | 口服; 造影術; 腎盂; 腸道; 靜脈; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 儘管「腸道預備」在放射線造影檢查申所扮演的角色仍頗有爭議,台灣 的醫療機構通常仍習慣性地在檢查之前,給予受檢者某種程度的「腸道預備」, 期使造影底片上的直腸內容物(腸氣、固體穢秘)能儘量清除,以提高造影品質和 診斷的準確度。 本研究的目的在比較兩種不同性質的瀉劑:「鎂福」和 「樂可舒」,在使用後對 患者所造成的腸道不適感,並同時比較這兩個族群「靜脈腎孟攝影」底片之清晰 度和影像品質。 研究結果顯示,兩種瀉劑都會引起腹絞痛或輕瀉的現象,但兩者之間的比較沒有 統計上的差異存在。在腸氣排空和腸固體穢物排空的比較方面,兩者也是相差無 幾,無特殊之差異性。雖然在「鎂幅」之族群中有百分之六十一之底片影像品質 評為 「優等」,「樂可舒」族群則僅有百分之五十,但二者之間的比較仍不具 統計意義。大約有三分之一的病患感覺 「鎂福」口服孔液之口感頗差,不容易 入口。(慈濟醫學1992;4:179-184) |
英文摘要 | The value of bowel preparation before contrast enhanced radiologic examination is a topic ofgreat controversy. In most institutes, application of different laxative regimens for bowel preparation before IVU has been practised for a long time. An investigation comparing two regimenswith different laxative in a prospective, randomized and double-blind manner was undertaken on54 cases, 26 and 28 respectively, receiving either Magvac (Magnesium Citrate oral solution) orDulcolax (Bisacodyl tablet) for bowel preparation. The results revealed that no difference betweenthe two regimens in the severity of abdominal cramping, number of bowel movement or incidenceof gastrointestinal up-set in either group. Nor was any difference observed in the film quality usingcompleteness of bowel gas emptying and fecal material emptying as comparing parameters. Theoverall assessment of IVU film quality showed that 67.5 in Magvac group and 50 in Dulcolax group was graded as excellent or good, although the difference was not significant statistically. Nine among 26 (34.6) in the Magvac group reported that the taste of this oral solutionwas poor or bad while only I complained so in the Dulcolax group. (Tz'u-Chi Med J 1992; 4:179-184) |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。