This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

LOREN E. HART, M.D.; MAURICE D. SACHS, M.D.; HARRY GRABSTALD, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1958;77(1):75-78.

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

The two chief difficulties encountered in seeking an ideal intravenous urographic medium are (1) undesirable side-reactions and (2) failure consistently to obtain films of good diagnostic quality. During the past few years, various concentrations and combinations of contrast media have been introduced for evaluation. Numerous encouraging results indicate that, in the majority of instances, many of these media might have advantages over some of the older, established urographic solutions.

It is the purpose of this study to review our experiences and results with a series of 4136 intravenous urograms which have been obtained with use of the newer pyelographic media. Results have been considered on the basis of reactions and quality of pyelograms.

Methods

This study is based on an examination of 4136 patients using the urographic media indicated in Table 1.

The history was taken with specific reference to allergy, previous reactions to urographic media, asthma, etc. A conjunctival . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Cleveland

Chief, Radiology Service, U. S. Army Hospital, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. (Dr. Hart).; From the Departments of Radiology and Urology, Veterans' Administration Hospital and Western Reserve University School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Jan. 8, 1958.

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