{"title":"通过磁共振成像测定功能性便秘或肠易激综合征患者的结肠容积。","authors":"Mette Winther Klinge, Klaus Krogh, Esben Bolvig Mark, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Lau Brix, Christin Isaksen, Milda Dedelaite, Jens Brøndum Frøkjaer, Lotte Vinskov Fynne","doi":"10.1111/nmo.14374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome constipation type (IBS-C) share many similarities, and it remains unknown whether they are distinct entities or part of the same spectrum of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows quantification of intraluminal fecal volume. We hypothesized that colonic volumes of patients with FC would be larger than those of patients with IBS-C, and that both patient groups would have larger colonic volumes than healthy controls (HC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on validated questionnaires, three groups of participants were classified into FC (n = 13), IBS-C (n = 10), and HC (n = 19). The colonic volume of each subject was determined by MRI. Stool consistency was described by the Bristol stool scale and colonic transit times were assessed with radiopaque makers.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Overall, total colonic volumes were different in the three groups, HC (median 629 ml, interquartile range (IQR)(562-868)), FC (864 ml, IQR(742-940)), and IBS-C (520 ml IQR(489-593)) (p = 0.001). Patients with IBS-C had lower colonic volumes than patients with FC (p = 0.001) and HC (p = 0.019), but there was no difference between FC and HC (p = 0.10). Stool consistency was similar in the two patient groups, but patients with FC had longer colonic transit time than those with IBS-C (117.6 h versus 43.2 h, p = 0.019).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with IBS-C have lower total colonic volumes and shorter colonic transit times than patients with FC. Future studies are needed to confirm that colonic volume allows objective distinction between the two conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51109,"journal":{"name":"Machining Science and Technology","volume":"6 1","pages":"e14374"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Colonic volume in patients with functional constipation or irritable bowel syndrome determined by magnetic resonance imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Mette Winther Klinge, Klaus Krogh, Esben Bolvig Mark, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Lau Brix, Christin Isaksen, Milda Dedelaite, Jens Brøndum Frøkjaer, Lotte Vinskov Fynne\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nmo.14374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome constipation type (IBS-C) share many similarities, and it remains unknown whether they are distinct entities or part of the same spectrum of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows quantification of intraluminal fecal volume. We hypothesized that colonic volumes of patients with FC would be larger than those of patients with IBS-C, and that both patient groups would have larger colonic volumes than healthy controls (HC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on validated questionnaires, three groups of participants were classified into FC (n = 13), IBS-C (n = 10), and HC (n = 19). The colonic volume of each subject was determined by MRI. Stool consistency was described by the Bristol stool scale and colonic transit times were assessed with radiopaque makers.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Overall, total colonic volumes were different in the three groups, HC (median 629 ml, interquartile range (IQR)(562-868)), FC (864 ml, IQR(742-940)), and IBS-C (520 ml IQR(489-593)) (p = 0.001). Patients with IBS-C had lower colonic volumes than patients with FC (p = 0.001) and HC (p = 0.019), but there was no difference between FC and HC (p = 0.10). Stool consistency was similar in the two patient groups, but patients with FC had longer colonic transit time than those with IBS-C (117.6 h versus 43.2 h, p = 0.019).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with IBS-C have lower total colonic volumes and shorter colonic transit times than patients with FC. Future studies are needed to confirm that colonic volume allows objective distinction between the two conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Machining Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"e14374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539850/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Machining Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14374\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/4/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Machining Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14374","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:功能性便秘(FC)和肠易激综合征便秘型(IBS-C)有许多相似之处,但它们是不同的疾病实体还是属于同一疾病谱仍是未知数。磁共振成像(MRI)可对肠腔内粪便体积进行量化。我们假设 FC 患者的结肠容积大于 IBS-C 患者,而且两组患者的结肠容积均大于健康对照组(HC):方法: 根据有效的调查问卷,将三组受试者分为 FC 组(13 人)、IBS-C 组(10 人)和 HC 组(19 人)。每个受试者的结肠容积由核磁共振成像测定。粪便稠度用布里斯托尔粪便量表进行描述,结肠通过时间用不透射线标记物进行评估:总体而言,HC 组(中位数为 629 毫升,四分位数间距 (IQR)(562-868))、FC 组(864 毫升,四分位数间距 (IQR)(742-940))和 IBS-C 组(520 毫升,四分位数间距 (IQR)(489-593))三组患者的结肠总容量不同(P = 0.001)。IBS-C 患者的结肠容积低于 FC 患者(p = 0.001)和 HC 患者(p = 0.019),但 FC 和 HC 患者之间没有差异(p = 0.10)。两组患者的粪便稠度相似,但 FC 患者的结肠通过时间比 IBS-C 患者长(117.6 小时对 43.2 小时,p = 0.019):结论:与 FC 患者相比,IBS-C 患者的结肠总容量较小,结肠转运时间较短。结论:与 FC 患者相比,IBS-C 患者的结肠总容积较小,结肠转运时间较短。未来的研究需要证实结肠容积能够客观地区分这两种情况。
Colonic volume in patients with functional constipation or irritable bowel syndrome determined by magnetic resonance imaging.
Background: Functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome constipation type (IBS-C) share many similarities, and it remains unknown whether they are distinct entities or part of the same spectrum of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows quantification of intraluminal fecal volume. We hypothesized that colonic volumes of patients with FC would be larger than those of patients with IBS-C, and that both patient groups would have larger colonic volumes than healthy controls (HC).
Methods: Based on validated questionnaires, three groups of participants were classified into FC (n = 13), IBS-C (n = 10), and HC (n = 19). The colonic volume of each subject was determined by MRI. Stool consistency was described by the Bristol stool scale and colonic transit times were assessed with radiopaque makers.
Key results: Overall, total colonic volumes were different in the three groups, HC (median 629 ml, interquartile range (IQR)(562-868)), FC (864 ml, IQR(742-940)), and IBS-C (520 ml IQR(489-593)) (p = 0.001). Patients with IBS-C had lower colonic volumes than patients with FC (p = 0.001) and HC (p = 0.019), but there was no difference between FC and HC (p = 0.10). Stool consistency was similar in the two patient groups, but patients with FC had longer colonic transit time than those with IBS-C (117.6 h versus 43.2 h, p = 0.019).
Conclusion: Patients with IBS-C have lower total colonic volumes and shorter colonic transit times than patients with FC. Future studies are needed to confirm that colonic volume allows objective distinction between the two conditions.
期刊介绍:
Machining Science and Technology publishes original scientific and technical papers and review articles on topics related to traditional and nontraditional machining processes performed on all materials—metals and advanced alloys, polymers, ceramics, composites, and biomaterials.
Topics covered include:
-machining performance of all materials, including lightweight materials-
coated and special cutting tools: design and machining performance evaluation-
predictive models for machining performance and optimization, including machining dynamics-
measurement and analysis of machined surfaces-
sustainable machining: dry, near-dry, or Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) and cryogenic machining processes
precision and micro/nano machining-
design and implementation of in-process sensors for monitoring and control of machining performance-
surface integrity in machining processes, including detection and characterization of machining damage-
new and advanced abrasive machining processes: design and performance analysis-
cutting fluids and special coolants/lubricants-
nontraditional and hybrid machining processes, including EDM, ECM, laser and plasma-assisted machining, waterjet and abrasive waterjet machining