Abstract
A prospective, randomized study of 60 patients undergoing sialography was conducted to compare Lipiodol Ultra Fluid (UF) (Ethyl diiodostearate, May & Baker Ltd), with Urografin 290 (meglumine diatrizoate 52.1% w/v and sodium diatrizoate 7.9% w/v, Schering). The quality of the images, the clinical tolerance and the side-effects of contrast were compared. Both agents produced adequate opacification of ducts but poor intra-gland duct filling was seen in two patients examined with Lipiodol UF. There were significantly more side-effects (which were also more severe) in the Lipiodol group. It is concluded that Urografin 290 is the better contrast agent for sialography because of better filling of intra-gland ducts and greater clinical tolerance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
