174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7719550)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. Peripheral infusion ports for central venous access in patients with gynecologic malignancies.
Cunningham MJ; Collins MB; Kredentser DC; Malfetano JH
Gynecol Oncol; 1996 Mar; 60(3):397-9. PubMed ID: 8774645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled silastic catheters. A safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term venous access.
Raad I; Davis S; Becker M; Hohn D; Houston D; Umphrey J; Bodey GP
Arch Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 153(15):1791-6. PubMed ID: 8392831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Central venous access devices in treatment of patients with malignant tumors: venous port, central venous catheter and Hickman catheter. Cost-benefit analysis based on a critical review of the literature, personal experiences with 135 port implantations and patient attitude].
Krupski G; Fröschle GW; Weh FJ; Schlosser GA
Chirurg; 1995 Mar; 66(3):202-7. PubMed ID: 7750390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. 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]
12. [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]
13. A peripherally implanted permanent central venous access device.
Morris P; Buller R; Kendall S; Anderson B
Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Dec; 78(6):1138-42. PubMed ID: 1945224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients.
Brothers TE; Von Moll LK; Niederhuber JE; Roberts JA; Walker-Andrews S; Ensminger WD
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1988 Apr; 166(4):295-301. PubMed ID: 3127896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Central venous catheters for infusion therapy in gastrointestinal cancer. A comparative study of tunnelled centrally placed catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters.
Snelling R; Jones G; Figueredo A; Major P
J Intraven Nurs; 2001; 24(1):38-47. PubMed ID: 11836843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
