885 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17566692)
1. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients.
Araújo C; Silva JP; Antunes P; Fernandes JM; Dias C; Pereira H; Dias T; Fougo JL
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2008 Feb; 34(2):222-6. PubMed ID: 17566692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Long-term complications in totally implantable venous access devices: randomized study comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein puncture.
Ribeiro RC; Abib SC; Aguiar AS; Schettini ST
Pediatr Blood Cancer; 2012 Feb; 58(2):274-7. PubMed ID: 21674765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Modification of approach for totally implantable venous access device decreases rate of complications.
Karanlik H; Kurul S
J Surg Oncol; 2009 Sep; 100(3):279-83. PubMed ID: 19582820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Complications after insertion of a totally implantable venous access port in patients treated with chemotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma].
Hoareau-Gruchet F; Rtail R; Sulaj H; Khirnetkina A; Reyt E; Righini CA
Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac; 2009 Apr; 126(2):43-52. PubMed ID: 19324328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. External jugular vein cutdown approach, as a useful alternative, supports the choice of the cephalic vein for totally implantable access device placement.
Di Carlo I; Barbagallo F; Toro A; Sofia M; Lombardo R; Cordio S
Ann Surg Oncol; 2005 Jul; 12(7):570-3. PubMed ID: 15889215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Insertion and management of long-term central venous devices: role of radiologic imaging techniques].
Capaccioli L; Nistri M; Distante V; Rontini M; Manetti A; Stecco A
Radiol Med; 1998 Oct; 96(4):369-74. PubMed ID: 9972217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Totally implantable venous access systems. Analysis of complications].
D'Angelo F; Ramacciato G; Caramitti A; Aurello P; Lauro S; Bordin F; Della Casa U
Minerva Chir; 1997; 52(7-8):937-42. PubMed ID: 9411296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An alternative central venous route for cardiac surgery: supraclavicular subclavian vein catheterization.
Kocum A; Sener M; Calıskan E; Bozdogan N; Atalay H; Aribogan A
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth; 2011 Dec; 25(6):1018-23. PubMed ID: 21474338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Subclavian vein stenosis following totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) implant by percutaneous approach. Case report.
Di Carlo I; Fasone MA; Toro A; Castello G; Sparatore F; Cordio S
G Chir; 2004; 25(11-12):417-9. PubMed ID: 15803820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of catheter-related infection and tip colonization between internal jugular and subclavian central venous catheters in surgical neonates.
Breschan C; Platzer M; Jost R; Schaumberger F; Stettner H; Likar R
Anesthesiology; 2007 Dec; 107(6):946-53. PubMed ID: 18043063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters.
Lorente L; Henry C; Martín MM; Jiménez A; Mora ML
Crit Care; 2005; 9(6):R631-5. PubMed ID: 16280064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Malpositioning of Hickman catheters, left versus right sided attempts.
Unal AE; Bayar S; Arat M; Ilhan O
Transfus Apher Sci; 2003 Feb; 28(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 12620263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Pulmonary artery catheterization: a prospective study of internal jugular and subclavian approaches.
Senagore A; Waller JD; Bonnell BW; Bursch LR; Scholten DJ
Crit Care Med; 1987 Jan; 15(1):35-7. PubMed ID: 3539524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports.
Hsu CC; Kwan GN; Evans-Barns H; Rophael JA; van Driel ML
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Aug; 2016(8):CD008942. PubMed ID: 27544827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A modified internal jugular vein access for long-term catheter placement in cancer patients.
Pires e Albuquerque M
Ann Surg Oncol; 2007 Feb; 14(2):937-41. PubMed ID: 17103072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Long-term central venous catheters: size and location do matter.
Onders RP; Shenk RR; Stellato TA
Am J Surg; 2006 Mar; 191(3):396-9. PubMed ID: 16490554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Totally implantable venous access port systems and risk factors for complications: a one-year prospective study in a cancer centre.
Narducci F; Jean-Laurent M; Boulanger L; El Bédoui S; Mallet Y; Houpeau JL; Hamdani A; Penel N; Fournier C
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 37(10):913-8. PubMed ID: 21831566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. External jugular Groshong catheter is associated with fewer complications than a subclavian Argyle catheter.
Ishizuka M; Nagata H; Takagi K; Horie T; Furihata M; Nakagawa A; Kubota K
Eur Surg Res; 2008; 40(2):197-202. PubMed ID: 17998779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Experience of anesthesiologists with percutaneous nonangiographic venous access.
Chen PT; Sung CS; Wang CC; Chan KH; Chang WK; Hsu WH
J Clin Anesth; 2007 Dec; 19(8):609-15. PubMed ID: 18083475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
