Abstract
Object of paper.—Clarification of position concerning clinical value of procedure. Conflicting views. Review of routine examination of all cases investigated during the past two years.
Historical.—Suggested by Cary (1914) and Rubin (1915), made practicable by the invention of lipiodol—applied Heuser (1924).
Technique.—Instruments employed, anæsthesia, X-ray figures, screening.
Material.—Uterine fibroids and carcinomas, extra-uterine tumours and cysts, placental remains and polypi, moles, &c. Correlation with operative results.
Physiology.—Normal shapes, sizes, and positions. Pseudo filling-defects and malformations.
Pathology.—Appearances in various conditions. Correlation with specimens and radiography of same. Fallacies and contradictions.
Conclusions.—Method of value in diagnosis of placental remains may avoid diagnostic curettage in carcinoma of body; by localization of fibromata may allow of prediction of myomectomy, &c. But fallacies numerous and much more experience required to make diagnosis so accurate as to be of much real routine value.