Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

Thomas F. Stephenson; Alex Chang; Kishan Pandya; Fernando Ona

doi:10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

Thomas F. Stephenson, Alex Chang, Kishan Pandya, Fernando Ona

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	257-262
Number of pages	6
Journal	Computerized Radiology
Volume	6
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X
State	Published - 1982
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

CT liver scanningTechnique
Cholegraphic
Contrast agents
Urographic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

Cite this

@article{e5692b475f034392a8daba1e8a552221,

title = "Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning",

abstract = "Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.",

keywords = "CT liver scanningTechnique, Cholegraphic, Contrast agents, Urographic",

author = "Stephenson, {Thomas F.} and Alex Chang and Kishan Pandya and Fernando Ona",

year = "1982",

doi = "10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "6",

pages = "257--262",

journal = "Computerized Radiology",

issn = "0730-4862",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

AU - Stephenson, Thomas F.

AU - Chang, Alex

AU - Pandya, Kishan

AU - Ona, Fernando

PY - 1982

Y1 - 1982

N2 - Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

AB - Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

KW - CT liver scanningTechnique

KW - Cholegraphic

KW - Contrast agents

KW - Urographic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0020183291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0020183291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

DO - 10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 7172643

AN - SCOPUS:0020183291

SN - 0730-4862

VL - 6

SP - 257

EP - 262

JO - Computerized Radiology

JF - Computerized Radiology

IS - 5

ER -

Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this