Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
45
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1983-1-7
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Hepatic echinococcosis generally gives rise to typical signs by ultrasound and computed tomography, even though a relatively large number of conditions has to be considered in the differential diagnosis. Comparing the two methods in 29 patients with manifestations of hepatic involvement by echinococcosis it was demonstrated that ultrasound is only slightly inferior, in cases of small-size involvement, which fails to be diagnosed as focal disease of the liver parenchyma. But ultrasound is the primary method of investigation, especially when the differential diagnosis is still open, and it is preferred for serial studies during and after treatment. Computed tomography is the method of choice particularly when it is necessary pre-operatively to document involvement beyond the liver itself.
|
| pubmed:language |
ger
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Nov
|
| pubmed:issn |
0012-0472
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:day |
12
|
| pubmed:volume |
107
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
1717-21
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2006-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1982
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
[Sonography vs. computer tomography in liver manifestations of echinococcosis].
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Comparative Study,
English Abstract
|