Advertisement

Gastrointestinal Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 148–150 | Cite as

The use of intravenous cholangiography in teaching hospitals: A survey

  • Ian R. Scott
  • Robert G. Gibney
  • Christoph D. Becker
  • J. Stephen Fache
  • H. Joachim Burhenne
Article

Abstract

Thirty academic radiology departments active in biliary imaging were surveyed to document how frequently intravenous cholangiography (IVC) was being performed. Over a 10-year period the number of examinations has decreased precipitously from approximately 1728 in 1976 to 8 in 1986. This coincides with the increased availability of alternative procedures. The availability of new contrast agents with improved diagnostic yield and decreased toxicity suggests that its use may have been prematurely abandoned.

Key words

Intravenous cholangiography Biliarytract, diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rholl KS, Smathers RL, McClennan BL, Lee JK: Intravenous cholangiography in the CT era.Gastrointest Radiol 10:69–74, 1985Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eubanks B, Martinez C, Mehigan D, Cameron J: Current role of intravenous cholangiography.Am J Surg 143:731–733, 1982Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodman MW, Ansel HJ, Vennes J, Lasser R, Silvis S: Is intravenous cholangiography still useful?Gastroenterology 709:642–645, 1980Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daley J, Fitzgerald T, Simpson C: Preoperative intravenous cholangiography as an alternative to routine operative cholangiography in elective cholecystectomy.Clin Radiol 38:161–163, 1987Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alinder G, Nilsson U, Lunderquist A, Herlin P, Holmin T: Preoperative infusion cholangiography compared to routine operative cholangiography at elective cholecystectomy.Br J Surg 73:383–387, 1986Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wallers K, McDermott P, James W: Intravenous cholangiography by bolus injection of meglumine iotroxamate and meglumine iodoxamate: a comparative trial of two new contrast media.Clin Radiol 32:457–459, 1981Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ott G, Gelfand D: Complications of gastrointestinal radiologic procedures. II. Complications related to biliary tract studies.Gastrointest Radiol 6:47–56, 1981Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shehadi W, Toniollo G: Adverse reactions to contrast media.Radiology 137:299–302, 1980Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ansell G: Adverse reactions to contrast agents. Scope of problem.Invest Radiol 5:374–384, 1970Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fork F-T, Nylander G, Olin T: Bilateral Videosignalkommunikation mellan kir. op. och röntgenavd. med digital röntgenbildehandling i samband med peroperative röntgenundersökningar, MAS, Malmö. InProceedings of the 41st Congress of The Nordic Society of Medical Radiology. Oslo, 1983, p 83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burhenne HJ, Fache JS, Gibney RG, Rowley VA, Becker CD: Biliary lithotripsy by extracorporeal shockwaves: an integral part of nonoperative intervention.AJR 150:1279–1283, 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian R. Scott
    • 1
  • Robert G. Gibney
    • 1
  • Christoph D. Becker
    • 1
  • J. Stephen Fache
    • 1
  • H. Joachim Burhenne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of British Columbia and Vancouver General HospitalVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations