AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Latchaw, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, D. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Latchaw, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Shaw, D. D.

American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol 6, Issue 6 931-933, Copyright © 1985 by American Society of Neuroradiology


ARTICLES

Iohexol vs. metrizamide: study of efficacy and morbidity in cervical myelography

RE Latchaw, WL Hirsch Jr, JA Horton, D Bissonette and DD Shaw

A double-blind study was conducted in 60 patients undergoing either cervical or more complete myelography via C1-C2 puncture. Patients received either iohexol or metrizamide at a 300 mg l/ml concentration. The contrast media were equally efficacious in the production of high- quality radiographs and CT scans. However, the incidence of adverse reactions differed markedly. Of patients receiving metrizamide, 68% had some type of adverse reaction, whereas only 26% receiving iohexol had symptoms. The incidence of headache (metrizamide, 34%; iohexol, 26%) was not statistically different, but the quality of the headache differed: half of the metrizamide headaches were moderate or severe, whereas all iohexol headaches were mild. Nausea (31%) and vomiting (28%) were common with metrizamide but unusual (3% nausea) with iohexol. Of the metrizamide patients, 21% had overt psychologic changes that did not occur in the iohexol group.