{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013742071881606765, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.189542483660131, '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}}
Methiodal Sodium and Metrizamide in Lumbar Myelography

The intention of this preliminary investigation was to establish a clinical model for comparing two contrast media for lumbar myelography, and at the same time gain some experience with metrizamide. This medium was compared with methiodal sodium, which is still the contrast medium most widely used for lumbar myelography in Scandinavia and which has a low incidence of side effects. Methiodal sodium (Abrodil, Kontrast U, Methiodal, Myelotrast, Skiodan) requires the use of spinal anaesthesia which in itself can give rise to complications. Anaesthesia is not necessary with metrizamide and thus the present report is not only a comparison between the two contrast media but also between two different procedures. The main purpose was to find out the tolerance to and the side effects of the new contrast medium metrizamide and not to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of the two media.