This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Thomas E. Garofalo, MD
Youngstown, Ohio

Arch Surg. 1997;132(9):1045.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

I would agree that a prospective study would be better, but I only did a retrospective review of medical records. However, I believe that the data here are relevant, as many medical records were discarded because of incomplete information about test results or definitive findings.

Currently, the protocol at this hospital, which is set up by the radiology department, includes direct injection of 12 mg of stannous pyrophosphate into the patient. After a 20-minute wait, 555 MBq of 99m-technetium-04 is injected directly into the patient. Immediate imaging is begun, and scanning is continued at 15-minute intervals. Delayed images are taken if ordered by the radiologist who is reviewing the films. I would agree that perhaps continuous scanning and an in vitro technique might give better results, but that is not included in our hospital's protocol. I would like to point out that this is a community hospital and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?