125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20060749)
1. 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]
2. Complication rate of venous access procedures performed by a radiology practitioner assistant compared with interventional radiology physicians and supervised trainees.
Benham JR; Culp WC; Wright LB; McCowan TC
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2007 Aug; 18(8):1001-4. PubMed ID: 17675618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer.
Beckers MM; Ruven HJ; Seldenrijk CA; Prins MH; Biesma DH
Thromb Res; 2010 Apr; 125(4):318-21. PubMed ID: 19640573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. "Blind" placement of long-term central venous access devices: report of 589 consecutive procedures.
Kincaid EH; Davis PW; Chang MC; Fenstermaker JM; Pennell TC
Am Surg; 1999 Jun; 65(6):520-3; discussion 523-4. PubMed ID: 10366205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. [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]
17. Peripherally-placed central venous access ports: clinical and laboratory observations.
Johnson JA; Didlake RH
Am Surg; 1994 Dec; 60(12):915-9. PubMed ID: 7992964
[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. [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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
