[Has phlebography become useless in the diagnosis of XXXX of the lower extremities?].

@entity32 @entity1619 @entity49 @entity1150 @entity715 @entity291
It is now widely accepted that the clinical diagnosis of @entity1619 (D.V.T.) is unreliable. Many venous thrombi are nonobstructive and not associated with vessel wall @entity32 or @entity32 of the surrounding tissues and consequently have no detectable clinical manifestations. Moreover, none of the symptoms or signs of @entity49 are unique to this condition and all can be caused by non @entity715 . On the other hand, in most of the D.V.T., the @entity291 is the site in the legs where a @entity715 starts. This @entity715 begins commonly in valve pockets throughout various deep veins of the leg and in saccules of soleal veins. Several non invasive techniques have been developed for diagnosing D.V.T.: 125I, fibrinogen, impedance plethysmography, Doppler ultrasound, Duplex scanning. Many publications document the correlation between venography and these non invasive tests for D.V.T. Unfortunately it appears that, excepted 125I. Fg, these techniques are poorly reliable at the level of the @entity291 . Moreover the diagnosis of D.V.T. may occur in particular and difficult situations such as a recurrent @entity1150 . Considering all above the authors believes that contrast venography remains the standard and that it is less dangerous to do unnecessary venography than not to recognize a @entity1150 .
