Evaluation of Gastrografin as Oral Contrast Medium in Abdominopelvic Ct Examinations Among Adult Patients

Background: Despite advances in CT technology and growing evidence supporting selective rather than routine use, gastrografin continues to be administered as standard practice in many imaging centres, with limited documented evidence on the factors driving this practice, particularly within the Nigerian context. Aim: This study evaluated the use of gastrografin as an oral contrast medium in abdominopelvic CT examinations among adult patients, with specific focus on the factors influencing its routine use, patient tolerance and compliance, and radiographers' perceptions of its clinical usefulness across indications. Materials and methods: A descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted at Access to Basic Care Foundation (ABC Foundation), Ringroad, Ibadan. Eighty patients were selected using the Taro Yamane formula, while all six radiographers at the facility who met the eligibility criteria were included through total enumeration (census) sampling. Data were collected using two semi-structured, Likert-scale questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Spearman's rank correlation. Results: Clinical indication emerged as the strongest factor influencing routine use, with unanimous strong agreement among radiographers (100.0%), followed by departmental protocol (66.7%) and time constraints. Patient tolerance was generally favourable, with 98.8% completing the required contrast volume and 87.5% willing to repeat the procedure, though taste remained the most common difficulty. Gastrografin was rated most useful for bowel obstruction and post-operative evaluation (mean = 5.00) and least useful for oncology staging (mean = 3.83). A statistically significant inverse relationship was found between perceived administration challenges and frequency of routine use (rs = −0.880, p = 0.021), though this finding warrants cautious interpretation given the small radiographer sample. Conclusion: Gastrografin retains genuine clinical value but is best applied selectively according to indication rather than as routine practice. Its consistent use in daily practice is shaped as much by practical and logistical factors as by clinical necessity. Indication-specific protocols, strengthened staff training, and further multi-centre research are recommended to validate and extend these findings.