600 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19267272)
1. 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]
2. Chest port placement with use of the single-incision insertion technique.
Charles HW; Miguel T; Kovacs S; Gohari A; Arampulikan J; McCann JW
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2009 Nov; 20(11):1464-9. PubMed ID: 19875065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access.
Funaki B; Szymski GX; Hackworth CA; Rosenblum JD; Burke R; Chang T; Leef JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Nov; 169(5):1431-4. PubMed ID: 9353475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients.
Lorch H; Zwaan M; Kagel C; Weiss HD
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2001; 24(3):180-4. PubMed ID: 11443406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Single-incision technique for tunneled central venous access.
Contractor SG; Phatak TD; Klyde D; Gonzales S; Sadowski S; Bhagat N
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2009 Aug; 20(8):1052-8. PubMed ID: 19647183
[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. [The fluoroscopy-guided implantation of subcutaneous venous ports: the complications and long-term results].
Kluge A; Stroh H; Wagner D; Rauber K
Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 9711285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience.
Cil BE; Canyiğit M; Peynircioğlu B; Hazirolan T; Carkaci S; Cekirge S; Balkanci F
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2006 Jun; 12(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 16752357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [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]
11. 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]
12. Tunneled internal jugular catheters in adult patients: comparison of outcomes in hemodialysis versus infusion catheters.
Peynircioglu B; Ozkan F; Canyigit M; Cil BE; Balkanci F
Acta Radiol; 2007 Jul; 48(6):613-9. PubMed ID: 17611867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Use of the right external jugular vein as the preferred access site when the right internal jugular vein is not usable.
Cho SK; Shin SW; Do YS; Park KB; Choo SW; Choo IW
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2006 May; 17(5):823-9. PubMed ID: 16687748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
