Abstract
The radiologist’s responsibility in the case of contrast medium adverse reaction may be also a problem of correct choice. This seems especially true when comparing new non-ionic contrast media to ionic ones. Many factors may influence the criteria of choice, but basic principles must be related to the protection of patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almen T, Tragardh B (1973) Effects of non-ionic contrast media on the blood flow through the feloral artery of the dog. Acta Radiol [Suppl] (Stockh) 335:197–203
Caresano A (1980) Iopamiro in clinical trials: a review of the literature. Rays [Suppl] 6:1–31
Granger RG (1980) The osmolarity of intravascular contrast media. Br J Radiol 53:739–746
Hammer B, Lackner W (1980) Iopamidol, a new nonionic hydrosoluble contrast medium for neuroradiology. Neuroradiology 19:119–121
Stake G, Borgnes J, Monn E (1979) Urography in children. A double blind study of metrizamide and metrizoate. Ann Radiol (Paris) 22:201–206
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1982 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fierro, D., Canale, M. (1982). Choice of Radiologic Contrast Medium: The Medico-legal Point of View. In: Amiel, M. (eds) Contrast Media in Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68584-2_70
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68584-2_70
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-11534-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-68584-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive