التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Non-permanent Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Prophylaxis and Treatment of Lower Limb Venous Thromboembolisme. |
| المؤلفون: |
Hiromatsu, Shinichi1, Nata, Shinichi2, Ohno, Tomokazu2, Shintani, Yusuke2, Kanaya, Kurando2, Sakashita, Hideki2, Fukunaga, Shuji2, Aoyagi, Shigeaki2 |
| المصدر: |
Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. Nov2010, Vol. 44 Issue 8, p668-673. 6p. |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
*LEG surgery, *VEIN surgery, *ACADEMIC medical centers, *ANALYSIS of variance, *CHI-squared test, *COMMERCIAL product evaluation, *COMPARATIVE studies, *COMPUTER software, *FILTERS & filtration, *HEALTH outcome assessment, *T-test (Statistics), *TOMOGRAPHY, *VEINS, *PULMONARY embolism prevention, *DATA analysis, *TREATMENT effectiveness, *RETROSPECTIVE studies, *MEDICAL device removal, *EQUIPMENT & supplies, THROMBOEMBOLISM prevention, THROMBOEMBOLISM treatment |
| مصطلحات جغرافية: |
JAPAN |
| مستخلص: |
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare our recent clinical experience with temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (TF) and retrievable IVC filters (RF). Materials and methods: Patients who received TF or RF implantation between October 2002 and May 2009 were studied. The early clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared.Results: Nonpermanent IVC filters were placed in 119 patients (34 in TF and 85 in RF). Retrieval of RF and removal of TF were successful in 98.7% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of filter-related complications for TF was significantly higher than for RF (26.5% vs 3.5%; P = .0004). However, no symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed during filter placement.Conclusion: TF and RF provided similar protection from PE. We prefer RF because they can be left in permanently if it is impossible to remove or retrieve the filter for some reason. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Academic Search Index |
