Barium suspensions

  • Giorgio Cittadini


Since as early as 1910 [1], barium sulfate and gastrointestinal radiology have been joined together in an indissoluble relationship, while any other alternative contrast materials, like barium metatitanate [2], have failed to replace barium sulfate. As known, the use of iodine-containing water-soluble contrast agents applies only to situations where barium sulfate is contraindicated. The reasons for all this are to be looked for in the favorable electronic environment of the Ba atom, which has a good Xphoton absorption in the energy range used in roentgendiagnostics, and also in the excellent tolerance to barium sulfate, which flows across the intestinallumen with very little absorption [3,4] and which may raise problems only in case of tight stenosis or perforation [5-8].


Foam Formation Intestinal Secretion Double Contrast Barium Enema Barium Suspension Barium Particle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bachern C, Günther H (1910) Bariumsulfat als schattenbildendes Kontrastmittel bei Röntgenuntersuchungen. Zeitschr Rontgenkunde Rad Forschr 12: 369–376Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heitz F, Heitz L (1974) Presentation d’un nouveau produit de contraste en radiologie digestive: le titanate de baryum. J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl 55: 430–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mauras Y, Allain P, Roques MA et al (1983) Étude de l’absorption digestive du baryum après l’administration orale du sulfate de baryum pour exploration radiologique. Thérapie 38: 109–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clavel JP, Lorillot ML, Buthiau D et al (1987) Absorption intestinale du baryum lors de l’explorations radiologiques. Thérapie 42: 239–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zheutlin N, Lasser EC, Rigler LG (1952) Clinical studies on effect of barium in the peritoneal cavity following rupture of the colon. Surgery 32: 967–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Westfall RH, Nelson RH, Musselman MM (1966) Barium peritonitis. Am J Surg 112: 760–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masel H, Masel JP, Casey KV (1971) A survey of colon examination techniques in Australia and New Zealand, with a review of complications. Australas Radiol 15: 140–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller RE, Skucas J, Violante MR et al (1975) The effect of barium on blood in the gastrointestinal tract. Radiology 117: 527–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amberg JR, Unger JD (1970) Contamination of barium sulfate suspension. Radiology 97: 182–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller RE (1965) Barium Sulfate Suspensions. Radiology 84: 241–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown GR (1963) High-density barium-sulfate suspensions: an improved diagnostic medium. Radiology 81: 839–845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skucas J (1989) Radiographic contrast agents. Second Edition. Rockville, Maryland: AspenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cittadini G (1979) Bario senza veli. Il Radiologo 18(4): 32–39Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Embring G, Mattsson O (1968) Barium Contrast Agents. Acta Radiol (Diagn) 7: 245–256Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwartz EE, Glick SN, Foggs MB et al (1984) Hypersensitivity reactions after barium enema examination. AJR 143: 103–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAvoy M, Young JWR, Keramati B (1985) Hypersensitivity reactions to barium suspension (letter). AJR 144: 1316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelfand DW, Sowers JC, DePonte KA et al (1985) Anaphylactic and allergic reactions during double-contrast studies: is glucagon or barium suspension the allergen? AJR 144: 405–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janower ML (1986) Hypersensitivity reactions after barium studies of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Radiology 161: 139–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levene G (1957) Rates of venous absorption of carbon dioxide and air used in double-contrast examination of the colon. Radiology 69: 571–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coblenz CL, Frost RA, Molinaro V et al (1985) Pain after barium enema: effect of CO2 and air on double-contrast study. Radiology 157: 35–36Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bassette JR, Maglinte DDT (1987) Double-contrast barium enema study: simple conversion to CO2. Radiology 162: 274–275Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernier P, Coblentz C (1986) CO2 delivery system for double-contrast barium enema examinations. Radiology 159: 264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scullion DA, Wetton CW, Davies C et al (1995) The use of air or CO2 as insufflation agents for double contrast barium enema (DCBE): is there a qualitative difference? Clin Radiol 50: 558–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skovgaard N, Sloth C, von Benzon E et al (1995) The role of carbon dioxide and atmospheric air in double-contrast barium enema. Abdom Imaging 20: 436–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farrow R, Jones AMM, Wallace DA et al (1995) Air versus carbon dioxide insufflation in double contrast barium enemas: the role of active gaseous drainage. Br J Radiol 68: 838–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia, Milano 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Cittadini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Genoa School of Medicine San Martino HospitalGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations