1998Veterinary Radiology & UltrasoundRequires access

A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING METRIZAMIDE AND IOHEXOL FOR EQUINE MYELOGRAPHY

William R. Widmer, William E. Blevins, Samuel Jakovljevic, Michel Lévy, Robert Teclaw, Connie M. Han, Cheryl D. Hurd

Open publisher page 23 citations

Abstract

A prospective clinical trial comparing adverse postmyelographic effects and myelographic quality of metrizamide and iohexol was conducted. Using a predetermined, randomized assignment, 24 horses exhibiting neurologic signs were administered either metrizamide (180 mgl/ml) or iohexol (180 mgl/ml) via cerebellomedullary puncture. Each horse was evaluated postmyelographically for adverse effects. Myelographic quality was assessed by a numerical scoring method. Adverse effects were observed more frequently with metrizamide (21) compared with iohexol (6) myelography (p < 0.05). Seizures, intensification of preexisting neurologic signs and prolonged anesthetic recovery were the most common complications after myelography. There was no difference in myelographic quality (p > 0.05). We conclude that iohexol is safer than metrizamide for equine myelography and that quality myelograms can be obtained with either contrast medium.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A prospective clinical trial comparing adverse postmyelographic effects and myelographic quality of metrizamide and iohexol was conducted. Using a predetermined, randomized assignment, 24 horses exhibiting neurologic signs were administered either metrizamide (180 mgl/ml) or iohexol (180 mgl/ml) via cerebellomedullary puncture. Each horse was evaluated postmyelographically for adverse effects. Myelographic quality was assessed by a numerical scoring method. Adverse effects were observed more frequently with metrizamide (21) compared with iohexol (6) myelography (p < 0.05). Seizures, intensification of preexisting neurologic signs and prolonged anesthetic recovery were the most common complications after myelography. There was no difference in myelographic quality (p > 0.05). We conclude that iohexol is safer than metrizamide for equine myelography and that quality myelograms can be obtained with either contrast medium.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A prospective clinical trial comparing adverse postmyelographic effects and myelographic quality of metrizamide and iohexol was conducted. Using a predetermined, randomized assignment, 24 horses exhibiting neurologic signs were administered either metrizamide (180 mgl/ml) or iohexol (180 mgl/ml) via cerebellomedullary puncture. Each horse was evaluated postmyelographically for adverse effects. Myelographic quality was assessed by a numerical scoring method. Adverse effects were observed more frequently with metrizamide (21) compared with iohexol (6) myelography (p < 0.05). Seizures, intensification of preexisting neurologic signs and prolonged anesthetic recovery were the most common complications after myelography. There was no difference in myelographic quality (p > 0.05). We conclude that iohexol is safer than metrizamide for equine myelography and that quality myelograms can be obtained with either contrast medium.

Key concepts: Metrizamide, Medicine, Iohexol, Myelography, Adverse effect, Anesthesia, Contrast medium, Radiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL TRIAL COMPARING METRIZAMIDE AND IOHEXOL FOR EQUINE MYELOGRAPHY — Research Paper | ScholarLens