Some of the more frequent complications and the attendant medicolegal implications that may occur during diagnostic procedures in the Radiology Department are indicated. With the increasing scope of interventional radiology, the potential for complication will escalate, and only by increasing our understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms involved and continued vigilance over all aspects of the procedures will radiologists fulfil their obligation to their patients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfidiR. J. (1975) Controversy, alternatives and decisions in complying with the legal doctrine of informed consent. Radiology114, 231–234.
2.
AnsellG. (1976) A survey of unwanted effects of drugs reported in 1972–75. Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs, Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam and Oxford, 8, 1020–1066.
3.
BraunwaldK.SwanH. J. C. (1968) Co-operative Study on Cardiac Catheterization. American Heart Associated Inc. New York.
FischerH. W.DoustV. L. (1972) An evaluation of pre-testing in the problem of serious and fatal reactions to excretory urography. Radiology103, 497–501.
7.
GraingerR. G. (1972) Renal toxicity of radiological contrast media. Br. Med. Bull.28, 191–195.
8.
GraingerR. G. (1977) Subcutaneous Tolerance of contrast media. Br. J. Radiol.50, 447.
9.
RavinC. E.KohlerP. R. (1977) Re-use of disposable catheters and guide wires. Radiology122, 577–579.
10.
SelzerA.AndersonW. L.MarchH. W. (1971) Indications for coronary arteriography: Risks versus benefits. Californian Medicine, 115, 1–6.
11.
ShehadiW. H. (1966) Clinical problems and toxicity of contrast agents. Amer. J. Roentgenology97, 762–771
