{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02583732057416268, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.301204819277109, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Role of echography and phlebography in the assessment of patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis of the legs].

The roles of US and venography in the evaluation of the patients with clinical suspicion of deep venous thrombosis are discussed relative to personal and literature data. The patients were divided into three groups: outpatients with previous history of venous thrombosis (group I), inpatients without previous history of venous thrombosis (group II) and patients with suspected recurrent venous thrombosis (group III). In group I, compression US yielded very good results: so much so that it can replace venography. In this group of patients, pulsed Doppler added no significant information, while color-Doppler appeared to be a valuable technique. As for the other two groups, venography was confirmed as the most useful technique, even though MR imaging is likely to play, in the future, an important role, since it allows better demonstration of the central thrombus, especially in diffuse occlusive thromboses.