Search

Objectives: Although the role of lactose intolerance in the pathogenesis of abdominal symptoms is well known, the role of fructose intolerance is unclear. Our aims were 1) to examine the prevalence of fructose intolerance in patients with unexplained abdominal symptoms, and 2) to explore whether fructose concentration influences fructose breath test., Methods: Over 2 yr, patients with unexplained symptoms answered questionnaires and underwent fructose breath tests. Patients received 50 g fructose in 150 ml water (33% solution). Breath samples were collected for hydrogen and methane. In a second study, breath test was performed after giving either 10%, 20%, or 33% fructose solution. Data were analyzed retrospectively., Results: A total of 183 patients (50 male, 133 female) had breath tests, of whom 134 (73%) were positive. Among these, 119 (89%) had elevated H(2), and 15 (11%) had elevated CH(4) or both gases. Questionnaires showed that flatus (83%), pain (80%), bloating (78%), belching (70%), and altered bowel habit (65%) were the most common symptoms. Breath test reproduced symptoms in 101 patients (75%). In the second study, 14/36 (39%) tested positive with a 10% solution, 23/33 (70%) with a 20% solution, and 16/20 (80%) with a 33% solution (10% versus 20% or 33%, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Fructose intolerance may cause unexplained GI symptoms. The higher yield of positive tests in our initial study may be due to referral bias or testing conditions; lower test dose produced a lower yield. Nonetheless, recognition and treatment of fructose intolerance may help many patients.

Objective: The aim of this work is to evaluate the potential radiation exposure to medical personnel by comparing results from phantom studies of two different fluoroscopic units used for ERCP, and to determine which equipment or behavior modification can reduce radiation exposure., Methods: Radiation exposures using an opaque tissue equivalent chest phantom with an abdominal insert were performed on a stationary dedicated fluoroscopy unit and a mobile C-arm unit, comparing varying equipment manipulations. Scatter radiation was recorded at 1) the patients' head, 2) where the endoscopist stands, and 3) where the equipment personnel stands., Results: Radiation exposures were significantly higher for the mobile C-arm unit, revealing a 4160-times greater dosage increase for head and neck and a 8660-times increase for body than the fixed unit. Tower position and vertically stationed lead shields facilitated exposure reduction by means of equipment manipulation. The positioning of the endoscopist away from the right corner of the units also decreased exposure., Conclusions: Dedicated stationary fluoroscopy units provide significantly less radiation exposure. Equipment and behavior modification including tower positioning down and vertical shielding are essential for reduction in radiation exposure to medical personnel.