Barium Studies

Author(s):  
Emanuele Casciani ◽  
Paola Cerro ◽  
Giovanni Di Nardo ◽  
Salvatore Oliva ◽  
Gianfranco Gualdi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
1967 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. DAVID DIXON ◽  
DEWARD O. FERRIS ◽  
JOHN R. HODGSON

Radiographics ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 691-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna M. Zafar ◽  
Marc S. Levine ◽  
Stephen E. Rubesin ◽  
Igor Laufer

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Nagammapudur Balaji ◽  
Carl Bradbury ◽  
Stephanie Evans ◽  
Vittal Rao

Abstract Background Upper GI endoscopy and barium swallow are the commonly used diagnostic modalities and Oesophageal manometry of late has contributed to the diagnosis of hiatal hernias. It is known that there exist considerable limitations within each modality in the diagnosis of this seemingly common condition. Aims To assess the correlation between the commonly used investigations of Upper GI Endoscopy and Barium studies and selective use of Esophageal physiology studies in the diagnosis of hiatal hernias. Methods 92 patients who had both an Upper GI endoscopy and Barium swallow in a University hospital formed the study population. There was a subgroup of 29 patients who also underwent a manometry and pH study as a part of their workup. A mix of endoscopists (Physicians, GPs, Surgeons, Supervised trainees and Nurses) performed the upper GI endoscopies. The barium studies were performed by specialist radiographers based on a standard protocol. GI physiology studies were performed by a single GI physiologist with over 25 years of experience. Correlation was performed in varied combinations based on the presence/absence and the size of hernias on different investigations. Results 74% (68) of patients were diagnosed to have a hiatal hernia on endoscopy whereas only 55% of the same group had a hiatal hernia on Barium studies. Of the 29 patients who had all the 3 investigations a hiatal hernia was diagnosed in 82% on endoscopy, 34% on Barium swallow and 48% on High resolution manometry. Only 21% of patients had correlation between all 3 studies. 62 percent had correlation between any 2 modalities and 17% did not have any correlation between any of the diagnostic modalities. The correlation in-between studies was greater for the moderate to large hernias and least for the small/absent hernias. Conclusion There exists considerable variation between the commonly performed procedures for this relatively presumed common condition. There is a greater observed tendency to diagnose a hiatal hernias on endoscopies and less on barium swallows based on the above study. The gold standard for the diagnosis is debatable, considering known limitations based on criteria for diagnosis, dynamic of the Oesophagogastric junction and operator variability. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.


1974 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107
Author(s):  
F.G.O. BURROWS ◽  
D.K.M. TOYE
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Igor Laufer ◽  
Marc S. Levine
Keyword(s):  

1985 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. McLean ◽  
Clive I. Bartram
Keyword(s):  

Radiology ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 170 (3) ◽  
pp. 811-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
S E Rubesin ◽  
M S Levine ◽  
S N Glick ◽  
H Herlinger ◽  
I Laufer

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 562-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda L Thorne ◽  
Stuart J Mercer ◽  
Guy JC Harris ◽  
Jay NL Simson

INTRODUCTION An audit of patients presenting with colorectal cancer to our district general hospital during a 2-year period from November 1994 found that 12.1% of cases were diagnosed later than 6 months after initial presentation to a physician. This audit was repeated for a 2-year period from December 2001, to determine whether the introduction of a specialist coloproctology surgery service had led to a reduction in late diagnosis of colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Case notes were reviewed of all patients presenting with colorectal cancer between December 2001 and November 2003. Late diagnosis was defined as diagnosis of colorectal cancer more than 6 months after their first attendance to either their general practitioner or district general hospital. The results were compared with those of the previous study. RESULTS Of a total of 218 patients presenting with colorectal cancer during the study period, 14 (6.4%; 10 men and 4 women) satisfied the criteria for late diagnosis, with the longest delay being 12.5 months. Reasons for late diagnosis were false-negative reporting of barium studies (n = 3), inaccurate tumour biopsy (n = 2), concurrent pathology causing anaemia (n = 4), inappropriate delay in definitive investigation (n = 3), and refusal of investigation by patients (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS There has been a reduction of nearly 50% (12.1% to 6.4%) in the proportion of patients with a late diagnosis of colorectal cancer compared with our previous audit. It is suggested that an important factor in this improvement in diagnosis has been the introduction of a specialist coloproctology surgery service.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document