Full Text Available

Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.

Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries

The rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) is long and difficult. Not only do they lose mobility but they also have changes in bowel continence caused by loss of voluntary motor and sensory function and damage to the visceral nerve supply. The maintenance and management of bowel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Freedman, Patricia Noel
Other Authors: Mann, Michael D
Format: Thesis
Language:English
Published: Division of Nuclear Medicine 2017
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1867613313447231488
access_status_str Open Access
author Freedman, Patricia Noel
author2 Mann, Michael D
author_browse Freedman, Patricia Noel
Mann, Michael D
author_facet Mann, Michael D
Freedman, Patricia Noel
author_sort Freedman, Patricia Noel
collection Thesis
description The rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) is long and difficult. Not only do they lose mobility but they also have changes in bowel continence caused by loss of voluntary motor and sensory function and damage to the visceral nerve supply. The maintenance and management of bowel function causes major morbidity for subjects with SCI. The effect of SCI on colonic function is poorly understood and little studied. Aim: This study sought to establish a method of studying regional colonic transit and to investigate whether the level of SCI influences colonic transit. Patients and Methods Sixteen subjects (8 paraplegics and 8 tetraplegics) with spinal cord injury, at least one year previously were recruited. The tetraplegics group had spinal cord injuries above T1 and the paraplegic group had injuries below T1 . They were given a pancake labelled with 10-18 Mbq of ln-111 Amberlite resin to eat. Anterior and posterior images were acquired for 400 seconds each, using a 40 cm field of view gamma camera, once on the first day and then 3 times a day for the next 4 days. The subjects were asked to report every time they had a bowel evacuation. No laxatives or enemas were permitted during the study. Subjects were permitted to eat and drink normally after the first images (3 hours) were acquired. Seven regions of interest (ROI) outlining, 1) ascending colon, 2) hepatic flexure, 3) transverse colon, 4) splenic flexure, 5) descending colon, 6) rectosigmoid and 7) total abdominal activity, were drawn on each set of anterior and posterior images. The counts were decay corrected. The decay corrected counts were used to calculate the geometric mean (GM), for each region, at each time point. The GM was used to calculate the percentage of the total abdominal activity in each region, at each time point. Colonic transit was assessed in 4 ways. Firstly, 3 independent Nuclear Medicine Physicians visually assessed transit on hard copies of the images and classified subjects into 5 categories of colonic transit (rapid transit, intermediate transit, generalised delay, right-sided delay or left-sided delay). Secondly, parametric images were constructed from the percentage activity in each region at each time point. Thirdly, the arrival and clearance times of the activity in the right and left colon were plotted as time-activity curves. Finally, the geometric centre of the distribution of the activity was calculated and plotted on a graph versus time. The parametric images, time activity curves of the right and left sides of the colon and the geometric centre for each subject were classified into the same categories as the visual assessment. All statistics were assumed to be non-parametric. Results: The results of the four methods of assessing colonic transit were compared and the majority categorisation was accepted as the final diagnosis. The best agreement occurred between the parametric images and the arrival and clearance times of the activity in the right and left colons. No single method was consistently correct. Amongst the paraplegic subjects, two had generalised delay, four had rightsided delay, and two left-sided delay. In the tetraplegic subjects, two had intermediate transit, 1 generalised delay, and 5 left-sided delay. Conclusion A combination of at least two methods of determining colonic is necessary. The level of spinal cord injury effects colonic transit. Injuries below T7 /T8 result in right-sided delay. Injuries above this most commonly result in left-sided delay. Occasionally injuries above T7/8 can result in intermediate transit or generalised delay. Paraplegics are more likely to have right-sided delay (p =0.04), whereas tetraplegics are more likely to have left-sided delay.
format Thesis
id oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/26358
institution University of Cape Town (South Africa)
language eng
last_indexed 2026-06-10T12:34:08.683Z
license_str Not specified — see source repository
provenance_str_mv Harvested via OAI-PMH from UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository
publishDate 2017
publishDateRange 2017
publishDateSort 2017
publisher Division of Nuclear Medicine
publisherStr Division of Nuclear Medicine
record_format dspace
source_str UCTD — University of Cape Town Open Access Repository
spelling oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/26358 Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries Freedman, Patricia Noel Mann, Michael D The rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) is long and difficult. Not only do they lose mobility but they also have changes in bowel continence caused by loss of voluntary motor and sensory function and damage to the visceral nerve supply. The maintenance and management of bowel function causes major morbidity for subjects with SCI. The effect of SCI on colonic function is poorly understood and little studied. Aim: This study sought to establish a method of studying regional colonic transit and to investigate whether the level of SCI influences colonic transit. Patients and Methods Sixteen subjects (8 paraplegics and 8 tetraplegics) with spinal cord injury, at least one year previously were recruited. The tetraplegics group had spinal cord injuries above T1 and the paraplegic group had injuries below T1 . They were given a pancake labelled with 10-18 Mbq of ln-111 Amberlite resin to eat. Anterior and posterior images were acquired for 400 seconds each, using a 40 cm field of view gamma camera, once on the first day and then 3 times a day for the next 4 days. The subjects were asked to report every time they had a bowel evacuation. No laxatives or enemas were permitted during the study. Subjects were permitted to eat and drink normally after the first images (3 hours) were acquired. Seven regions of interest (ROI) outlining, 1) ascending colon, 2) hepatic flexure, 3) transverse colon, 4) splenic flexure, 5) descending colon, 6) rectosigmoid and 7) total abdominal activity, were drawn on each set of anterior and posterior images. The counts were decay corrected. The decay corrected counts were used to calculate the geometric mean (GM), for each region, at each time point. The GM was used to calculate the percentage of the total abdominal activity in each region, at each time point. Colonic transit was assessed in 4 ways. Firstly, 3 independent Nuclear Medicine Physicians visually assessed transit on hard copies of the images and classified subjects into 5 categories of colonic transit (rapid transit, intermediate transit, generalised delay, right-sided delay or left-sided delay). Secondly, parametric images were constructed from the percentage activity in each region at each time point. Thirdly, the arrival and clearance times of the activity in the right and left colon were plotted as time-activity curves. Finally, the geometric centre of the distribution of the activity was calculated and plotted on a graph versus time. The parametric images, time activity curves of the right and left sides of the colon and the geometric centre for each subject were classified into the same categories as the visual assessment. All statistics were assumed to be non-parametric. Results: The results of the four methods of assessing colonic transit were compared and the majority categorisation was accepted as the final diagnosis. The best agreement occurred between the parametric images and the arrival and clearance times of the activity in the right and left colons. No single method was consistently correct. Amongst the paraplegic subjects, two had generalised delay, four had rightsided delay, and two left-sided delay. In the tetraplegic subjects, two had intermediate transit, 1 generalised delay, and 5 left-sided delay. Conclusion A combination of at least two methods of determining colonic is necessary. The level of spinal cord injury effects colonic transit. Injuries below T7 /T8 result in right-sided delay. Injuries above this most commonly result in left-sided delay. Occasionally injuries above T7/8 can result in intermediate transit or generalised delay. Paraplegics are more likely to have right-sided delay (p =0.04), whereas tetraplegics are more likely to have left-sided delay. 2017-11-17T07:53:45Z 2017-11-17T07:53:45Z 2001 2017-04-19T14:18:09Z Master Thesis Masters MSc (Med) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26358 eng application/pdf Division of Nuclear Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences University of Cape Town
spellingShingle Freedman, Patricia Noel
Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
thesis_degree_str Master's
title Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
title_full Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
title_fullStr Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
title_full_unstemmed Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
title_short Colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
title_sort colonic transit in subjects with spinal cord injuries
url http://hdl.handle.net/11427/26358
work_keys_str_mv AT freedmanpatricianoel colonictransitinsubjectswithspinalcordinjuries