183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19957181)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. Complication rates and outcomes of 536 implanted subcutaneous chest ports: do rates differ based on the primary operator's level of training?
Silas AM; Perrich KD; Hoffer EK; McNulty NJ
Acad Radiol; 2010 Apr; 17(4):464-7. PubMed ID: 20060749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. [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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports.
Sticca RP; Dewing BD; Harris JD
Am J Surg; 2009 Dec; 198(6):829-33. PubMed ID: 19969137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Outpatient placement of subcutaneous venous access ports reduces the rate of infection and dehiscence compared with inpatient placement.
Pandey N; Chittams JL; Trerotola SO
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2013 Jun; 24(6):849-54. PubMed ID: 23582442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Complications associated with an implantable vascular access device.
Dillon PA; Foglia RP
J Pediatr Surg; 2006 Sep; 41(9):1582-7. PubMed ID: 16952595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Inversion ("flipping") Rates Among Different Port Designs: A Single-Center Experience.
Etezadi V; Trerotola SO
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2017 Apr; 40(4):553-559. PubMed ID: 28004169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Long-term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device.
Biffi R; Corrado F; de Braud F; de Lucia F; Scarpa D; Testori A; Orsi F; Bellomi M; Mauri S; Aapro M; Andreoni B
Eur J Cancer; 1997 Jul; 33(8):1190-4. PubMed ID: 9301441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Complications associated with the placement of subcutaneous central venous access port devices: reasons for removal and complications observed].
Danno K; Ohnishi T; Watanabe A; Ueda M; Yanagawa T; Kim C; Fujita S; Fujita J; Yoshida T; Tono T; Monden T; Imaoka S
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho; 2012 Nov; 39(12):2404-6. PubMed ID: 23268092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports.
Carlo JT; Lamont JP; McCarty TM; Livingston S; Kuhn JA
Am J Surg; 2004 Dec; 188(6):722-7. PubMed ID: 15619490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The mechanisms of failure of totally implantable central venous access system: analysis of 73 cases with fracture of catheter.
Lin CH; Wu HS; Chan DC; Hsieh CB; Huang MH; Yu JC
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2010 Jan; 36(1):100-3. PubMed ID: 19709847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
