136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19969137)
1. 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]
2. Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings.
Horattas MC; Trupiano J; Hopkins S; Pasini D; Martino C; Murty A
Am J Infect Control; 2001 Feb; 29(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 11172316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of delayed complications of central venous catheters placed surgically or radiologically in pediatric oncology patients.
Basford TJ; Poenaru D; Silva M
J Pediatr Surg; 2003 May; 38(5):788-92. PubMed ID: 12720195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Long-term results of radiologic placement of a central vein access device.
Beheshti MV; Protzer WR; Tomlinson TL; Martinek E; Baatz LA; Collins MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Mar; 170(3):731-4. PubMed ID: 9490964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Peripheral ports are a new option for central venous access.
Schuman E; Ragsdale J
J Am Coll Surg; 1995 Apr; 180(4):456-60. PubMed ID: 7719550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Radiologic placement of long-term central venous peripheral access system ports (PAS Port): results in 150 patients.
Foley MJ
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 1995; 6(2):255-62. PubMed ID: 7787360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interventional radiology in the provision and maintenance of long-term central venous access.
Lyon SM; Given M; Marshall NL
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2008 Feb; 52(1):10-7. PubMed ID: 18373820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of totally implanted reservoirs with external catheters as venous access devices in pediatric oncologic patients.
Ross MN; Haase GM; Poole MA; Burrington JD; Odom LF
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1988 Aug; 167(2):141-4. PubMed ID: 3400032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable venous access device insertion using interventional radiologic versus conventional operating room methods in pediatric patients with cancer.
Hancock-Howard R; Connolly BL; McMahon M; Menon A; Woo G; Wales PW; Aziza A; Laporte A; Nauenberg E; Ungar WJ
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2010 May; 21(5):677-84. PubMed ID: 20347335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. [Subcutaneous chamber systems (ports) for long-term care in cancer patients].
Hájek R; Sevcík P; Ondrásek J; Mayer J; Vásová I; Král Z; Tomíska M; Krahulcová E; Penka M; Kubesová H
Vnitr Lek; 1995 Jan; 41(1):21-7. PubMed ID: 7716888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Experience with 100 consecutive central venous access arm ports placed by interventional radiologists.
Hills JR; Cardella JF; Cardella K; Waybill PN
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 1997; 8(6):983-9. PubMed ID: 9399467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The role of the interventional radiologist in central venous access.
Blum AS
J Intraven Nurs; 1999; 22(6 Suppl):S32-9. PubMed ID: 10865606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
