[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.94.5. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Letters
March 21, 1964

Removal of Iodized Oil After Myelography

Author Affiliations

San Francisco

JAMA. 1964;187(12):961. doi:10.1001/jama.1964.03060250079025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor:—  After 35 years as a well-established diagnostic procedure, positive contrast myelography still arouses a certain uneasiness, and there is widespread fear of the medicolegal implications of the use of iodized oils in the spinal canal. In dogs, the intrathecal introduction of such oils appears to be regularly followed by the formation of adhesions around the cauda equina, with or without attendant progressive morbidity. Whether or not such adhesions occur in man in response to myelographic contrast media, or, if they do, whether they have morbid significance has not been established. Reports of chronic morbidity following myelography have been unconvincing. The very few deaths that have occurred immediately upon introduction of the oil are almost certainly attributable to idiosyncrasy. Aspiration of the oil, a painful procedure, is possibly harmful in itself. Whether a small residue is less damaging than a large one is not apparent; yet total removal

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×