Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 1993
Deployment problems with the titanium Greenfield filter.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sweeney T J, Van Aman M E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The authors retrospectively reviewed their initial experience with deployment of the modified hook titanium Greenfield filter.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients underwent filter placements over a 1-year period. Radiographs were obtained immediately after placement to confirm filter position in all cases. Follow-up images were available in 15 patients (65%).
RESULTS: Twenty-four filters were placed in 23 patients. Tilting of the filter (> 15 degrees) was evaluated in 22 placements without complications and was present in five (23%). In 17 of 24 placements (71%), distribution of filter legs was poor, with wide gaps between clustered legs. Manipulation of the filter legs with an angiographic catheter resulted in improved distribution in three of six attempts but also resulted in a caudal displacement, which necessitated placement of a second filter. At follow-up (range, 4-16 months; mean, 9 months), three cases of asymptomatic inferior vena caval thrombosis and one recurrent pulmonary embolism were discovered.
CONCLUSION: No untoward event resulting from filter placement was demonstrated. Further study and review of the deployment mechanism may be necessary.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients underwent filter placements over a 1-year period. Radiographs were obtained immediately after placement to confirm filter position in all cases. Follow-up images were available in 15 patients (65%).
RESULTS: Twenty-four filters were placed in 23 patients. Tilting of the filter (> 15 degrees) was evaluated in 22 placements without complications and was present in five (23%). In 17 of 24 placements (71%), distribution of filter legs was poor, with wide gaps between clustered legs. Manipulation of the filter legs with an angiographic catheter resulted in improved distribution in three of six attempts but also resulted in a caudal displacement, which necessitated placement of a second filter. At follow-up (range, 4-16 months; mean, 9 months), three cases of asymptomatic inferior vena caval thrombosis and one recurrent pulmonary embolism were discovered.
CONCLUSION: No untoward event resulting from filter placement was demonstrated. Further study and review of the deployment mechanism may be necessary.