Kontrastmittelbedingte Nebenwirkungen und Komplikationen der Urographie

  • V. Taenzer
Conference paper

Zusammenfassung

Die Röntgendiagnostik des Urogenitaltrakts begann mit der von Voelker und Lichtenberg 1905 [25] entwickelten und propagierten retrograden Pyelographie, die trotz erheblicher Nebenwirkungen lange Jahre der Urologie wertvollste Dienste leistete.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Benness GT (1970) Urographic contrast agents. A comparison of sodium and methyl- glucamine salts. Clin Radiol 21: 150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bettmann MA (1989) Guidelines for use of low-osmolality contrast agents. Radiology 172: 901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binz A, Räth C (1928) Über biochemische Eigenschaften von Derivaten des Pyridins und Chinolins. Biochem 203: 218Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dominik R, Keysser R, Taenzer V (1989) Iopromide dosage and urographic image quality: Is there an optimal dose? In: Taenzer V, Wende S (eds) Thieme, Stuttgart, p 111Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doubilet P, Weinstein MC, McNeil BJ (1986) Use and misuse of the term “cost effective” in medicine. N Engl J Med 314: 253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doyle FH, Sherwood T, Steiner RE, Breckenridge A, Dollery CT (1967) Large-dose urography. Is there an optimal dosage? Lancet 2: 964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evill CA, Benness GT (1978) Urographic excretion studies with metrizamide and “dimer”. A high dose comparison in dogs. Invest Radiol 13: 325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer HW, Neville JH, Carr JD (1971) Optimum dose in excretory urography. AJR 113: 423Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hattery RR, Williamson B, Hartman G, LeRoy AJ, Witten DM (1988) Intravenous urographic technique. Radiology 167: 593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobsen BF et al. (1988) Nonionic versus ionic contrast media in intravenous urography: clinical trial in 1000 consecutive patients. Radiology 167: 601Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katayama H et al. (1988) Adverse reactions to contrast media: Ionic CM versus nonionic CM. (Vorgestellt auf der wissenschaftl. Ausstellung des RSNA im November 1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kinnison ML, Powe NR, Steinberg EP (1989) Results of randomized controlled trials of low versus high-osmolality contrast media. Radiology 170: 381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang, EK (1981) The influence of contrast medium induced acute tubular necrosis following arteriography. Radiology 138: 203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langecker H, Harwart A, Junkmann K (1954) 3,5-Diacetylamino-2,4,6-trijodben-zoesäure als Röntgenkontrastmittel. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 220: 584Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lasser EC, Berry CC (1989) Nonionic vs ionic contrast media: what do the data tell us? AJR 152: 945PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levorstad K, Kolbenstvedt A, Loyning EW (1983) Iohexol compared with metrizoate in urography. Acta Radiol [Diagn] (Stock) 24: 337Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    v. Lichtenberg A, Swick M (1929) Klinische Prüfung des Uroselectans. Klin Wochenschr 8: 2089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McClennan BL (1987) Low-osmolality contrast media: premises and promises. Radiology 162: 1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osborne ED, Sutherland CG, Scholl AJ, Rowntree LG (1923) Roentgenography of urinary tract during excretion of sodium iodide. JAMA 80: 368Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Powe NR, Kinnison ML, Steinberg ER (1989) Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials of contrast media. Radiology 170: 377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schencker B (1964) Drip infusion pyelography. Indications and applications in urologie roentgen diagnosis. Radiology 83: 12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherwood T, Breckenridge A, Dollery CT et al. (1968) Intravenous urography and renal function. Clin Radiol 19: 296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taenzer V, Heep H, Clauß W (1983) Urography with nonionic contrast media. In: Taenzer V, Zeitler E (eds) Contrast media in urography, angiography and computed tomography. Thieme, Stuttgart, S 148Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taenzer V (1987) Optimum dosage in urography. In: Contrast media from the past to the future. Thieme, Stuttgart, p 123Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Voelker F, v. Lichtenberg A (1906) Pyelographie (Röntgenographie des Nierenbeckens nach Kollargolfüllung). Münch Med Wochenschr 53: 105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Taenzer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations