The Aword

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size


E-mail Print PDF


Hurteau et al., in 1954, published a paper ([1]) on arachnoiditis after the use of iodised oil for myelography.

The authors commented:

"Clinical and laboratory data...suggest that Pantopaque may contribute to, or possibly cause severe reaction within the subarachnoid space."

They also remarked on the importance of complete removal of the dye.

At around this time, a paper by William Meacham MD and Joe Capps MD on Pantopaque Myelography: The Meningeal Responses to Retained Pantopaque in the Experimental Animal, discussed in detail the findings to date on the effects of iodised oils injected for myelography.

The authors stated about Pantopaque:

" The fact remains that serious, and at times fatal, complications may ensue from its retention."

They went on to remark:

"There is, therefore, virtual unanimity of opinion in this country (the US) that the oil used for myelography should be removed as atraumatic as possibly (sic.) immediately after the procedure."

In their Summary and Conclusions, they stated:

"The retention of Pantopaque in the spinal subarachnoid space of the dog consistently is productive of an extensive, acute meningeal response to the oil." 

[1] Hurteau EE, Baird WC, Sinclair E J Bone Joint Surg. 1954; 36: 393 Arachnoiditis Following the Use of iodised oil.