Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pais, S. O.
Right arrow Articles by De Orchis, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pais, S. O.
Right arrow Articles by De Orchis, D. F.

Radiology, Vol 165, 377-381, Copyright © 1987 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Percutaneous insertion of the Kimray-Greenfield filter: technical considerations and problems

SO Pais, SE Mirvis and DF De Orchis
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Maryland Medical System/Hospital, Baltimore 21201.

Kimray-Greenfield filters were inserted percutaneously into the inferior vena cava (IVC) in 57 patients. Thirty-six were placed from the right femoral vein, 14 from the left femoral vein, and seven from the right internal jugular vein. There were no deaths or major complications and only six minor complications. Inferior vena cavography was done before filter insertion in all cases. Cavography is vital to determine feasibility of filter insertion, route of insertion, and filter location; pertinent findings include caval size, presence or absence of clot in the IVC or iliac veins, and position of the renal veins. The guide wire provided with the standard filter introduction set has a tendency to catch on the filter as the wire is withdrawn. A stiff wire with a straight, tapered, floppy tip was substituted. The femoral approach is preferred when it is feasible. Though there was only one known occurrence of femoral vein thrombosis at the filter insertion site, other cases may have occurred and may not have been detected. If the frequency of this complication proves to be significant, the preferred route for filter insertion may have to be reconsidered.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. A. Savin, H. K. Panicker, S. Sadiq, Y. A. Albeer, and R. E. Olson
Placement of Vena Cava Filters: Factors Affecting Technical Success and Immediate Complications
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 597 - 602.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
R. H. White, H. Zhou, J. Kim, and P. S. Romano
A Population-Based Study of the Effectiveness of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Use Among Patients With Venous Thromboembolism
Arch Intern Med, July 10, 2000; 160(13): 2033 - 2041.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THERHome page
L. J. Greenfield and M. C. Proctor
Update on the Titanium Greenfield Filter and Recommendations for Insertion
Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, January 1, 1998; 9(2): 41 - 46.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURGHome page
N. Nakagawa, A. H. Cragg, T. P. Smith, F. Castaneda, S. C. De Jong, and W. H. Barnhart
Experimental Evaluation of a Retrievable Vena Cava Filter
Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, January 1, 1994; 28(1): 7 - 14.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1987 by the Radiological Society of North America.