{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023255813953488372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007751937984496124, 'mean_word_length': 5.321678321678322, '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}}
Comparison of Aortography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

During a three-year period 51 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) computed tomography (CT) and aortography to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and role of each study. Ct and MRI were 100% accurate in establishing the diagnosis of AAA, whereas aortography did not visualize the AAA in 3 patients nor the associated iliac aneurysms in 3 other patients. MRI and aortography were superior to CT in evaluating the celiac, superior mesenteric, and renal arteries. CT should be the screening method of choice to identify AAA, and when operation is contemplated, aortography will best demonstrate the mesenteric and renal anatomy. If aortography is deemed too hazardous, MRI will yield the most information and should then be the noninvasive test of choice.