Iohexol versus Metrizamide for Lumbar Myelography: Preliminary Report of Double-Blind Trial
Stephen S. Gebarski, Trygve O. Gabrielsen, James E. Knake, J T Latack, Julian T. Hoff
Abstract
Stephen S. Gebarski, Trygve O. Gabrielsen, James E. Knake, J T Latack, Julian T. Hoff
Abstract
Lumbar myelography was performed in 38 patients; 19 received iohexol (an investigational aqueous contrast agent) and 19 received metrizamide. Iohexol is stable in solution, which is not the case with metrizamide. There was no other significant difference in diagnostic utility or quality between the two media. However, there was considerable postmyelography morbidity in the metrizamide group, but no postmyelography morbidity in the iohexol group. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests that iohexol is significantly superior to metrizamide as a contrast agent for lumbar myelography.
OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Lumbar myelography was performed in 38 patients; 19 received iohexol (an investigational aqueous contrast agent) and 19 received metrizamide. Iohexol is stable in solution, which is not the case with metrizamide. There was no other significant difference in diagnostic utility or quality between the two media. However, there was considerable postmyelography morbidity in the metrizamide group, but no postmyelography morbidity in the iohexol group. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests that iohexol is significantly superior to metrizamide as a contrast agent for lumbar myelography.
Key concepts: Metrizamide, Iohexol, Medicine, Myelography, Lumbar, Contrast medium, Radiology, Nuclear medicine