272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11733967)
1. Factors predicting subcutaneous implanted central venous port function: the relationship between catheter tip location and port failure in patients with gynecologic malignancies.
Cohn DE; Mutch DG; Rader JS; Farrell M; Awantang R; Herzog TJ
Gynecol Oncol; 2001 Dec; 83(3):533-6. PubMed ID: 11733967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction.
Ignatov A; Hoffman O; Smith B; Fahlke J; Peters B; Bischoff J; Costa SD
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2009 Mar; 35(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 18329836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Incidence of mechanical malfunction in low-profile subcutaneous implantable venous access devices in patients receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies.
Subramaniam A; Kim KH; Bryant SA; Kimball KJ; Huh WK; Straughn JM; Estes JM; Alvarez RD
Gynecol Oncol; 2011 Oct; 123(1):54-7. PubMed ID: 21742372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis.
Schwarz RE; Groeger JS; Coit DG
Cancer; 1997 Apr; 79(8):1635-40. PubMed ID: 9118051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies.
Nelson BE; Mayer AR; Tseng PC; Schwartz PE
Gynecol Oncol; 1994 Apr; 53(1):98-102. PubMed ID: 8175028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Radiologic placement of a low profile implantable venous access port in a pediatric population.
Nosher JL; Bodner LJ; Ettinger LJ; Siegel RL; Gribbin C; Asch J; Drachtman RA
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2001; 24(6):395-9. PubMed ID: 11907746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A peripherally implanted permanent central venous access device.
Morris P; Buller R; Kendall S; Anderson B
Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Dec; 78(6):1138-42. PubMed ID: 1945224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Long-term experience with a totally implanted catheter system in gynecologic oncologic patients.
Koonings PP; Given FT
J Am Coll Surg; 1994 Feb; 178(2):164-6. PubMed ID: 8173727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Relationship between chest port catheter tip position and port malfunction after interventional radiologic placement.
Schutz JC; Patel AA; Clark TW; Solomon JA; Freiman DB; Tuite CM; Mondschein JI; Soulen MC; Shlansky-Goldberg RD; Stavropoulos SW; Kwak A; Chittams JL; Trerotola SO
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2004 Jun; 15(6):581-7. PubMed ID: 15178718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Technical benefits and outcomes of modified upwardly created subcutaneous chest pockets for placing central venous ports: single-center experience.
Lee SH; Chun HJ; Choi BG
Acta Radiol; 2009 May; 50(4):368-73. PubMed ID: 19267272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Implantable catheter systems. Experiences with 1000 patients with central venous ports].
Kock HJ; Krause U; Pietsch M; Rasfeld S; Walz MK
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 1996 Jan; 121(3):47-51. PubMed ID: 8565809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients.
Gleeson NC; Fiorica JV; Mark JE; Pinelli DM; Hoffman MS; Roberts WS; Cavanagh D
Gynecol Oncol; 1993 Dec; 51(3):372-6. PubMed ID: 8112648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Risk of venous access device wound complications in patients undergoing paclitaxel chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies.
Boulay RM; Olt GJ; Podczaski ES
Gynecol Oncol; 1998 Aug; 70(2):259-62. PubMed ID: 9740701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Implantable subcutaneous venous access devices: is port fixation necessary? A review of 534 cases.
McNulty NJ; Perrich KD; Silas AM; Linville RM; Forauer AR
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2010 Aug; 33(4):751-5. PubMed ID: 19957181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Safety and effectiveness of central vein catheters indwelling with subcutaneous port in patients undergoing chemotherapy].
Ge F; Cang J; Xue ZG
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Aug; 88(33):2331-4. PubMed ID: 19087693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Insertion of Groshong central venous catheters utilizing fluoroscopic techniques.
Burnett AF; Lossef SV; Barth KH; Grendys EC; Johnson JC; Barter JF; Barnes WA
Gynecol Oncol; 1994 Jan; 52(1):69-73. PubMed ID: 8307504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Do central venous catheters have advantages over arteriovenous fistulas or grafts?
Quarello F; Forneris G; Borca M; Pozzato M
J Nephrol; 2006; 19(3):265-79. PubMed ID: 16874685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of clinical outcomes with regular- and low-profile totally implanted central venous port systems.
Teichgräber UK; Streitparth F; Cho CH; Benter T; Gebauer B
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2009 Sep; 32(5):975-9. PubMed ID: 19085032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Aspects of central venous access catheter usage in patients with malignancy.
Hardman D; Englund R; Hanel K
N Z Med J; 1994 Jun; 107(979):224-6. PubMed ID: 8208484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of catheter loops in central venous port systems.
Behrendt FF; Wingen M; Katoh M; Guenther RW; Buecker A
Invest Radiol; 2006 Nov; 41(11):777-80. PubMed ID: 17035867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
