120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7896188)
1. An evaluation of Groshong central venous catheters on a gynecologic oncology service.
Holloway RW; Orr JW
Gynecol Oncol; 1995 Feb; 56(2):211-7. PubMed ID: 7896188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Insertion of Groshong central venous catheters utilizing fluoroscopic techniques.
Burnett AF; Lossef SV; Barth KH; Grendys EC; Johnson JC; Barter JF; Barnes WA
Gynecol Oncol; 1994 Jan; 52(1):69-73. PubMed ID: 8307504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients.
Gleeson NC; Fiorica JV; Mark JE; Pinelli DM; Hoffman MS; Roberts WS; Cavanagh D
Gynecol Oncol; 1993 Dec; 51(3):372-6. PubMed ID: 8112648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [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]
5. Percutaneous placement of femoral central venous catheter in patients undergoing transplantation of bone marrow.
Lazarus HM; Creger RJ; Bloom AD; Shenk R
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1990 May; 170(5):403-6. PubMed ID: 2183372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Risk of venous access device wound complications in patients undergoing paclitaxel chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies.
Boulay RM; Olt GJ; Podczaski ES
Gynecol Oncol; 1998 Aug; 70(2):259-62. PubMed ID: 9740701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A randomized, prospective trial of standard Hickman compared with Groshong central venous catheters in pediatric oncology patients.
Warner BW; Haygood MM; Davies SL; Hennies GA
J Am Coll Surg; 1996 Aug; 183(2):140-4. PubMed ID: 8696545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Complications related to indwelling caval catheters on a gynecologic oncology service.
Silver DF; Hempling RE; Recio FO; Piver MS; Eltabbakh GH
Gynecol Oncol; 1998 Sep; 70(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 9790783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Infectious and non-infectious complications of tunneled central catheters in hematologic patients].
Albo López C; López Rodríguez D; Constenla Camba MI; Jimenéz Blanco A; Araujo LF; García-Medina J
Sangre (Barc); 1999 Jun; 44(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 10481577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Multi-purpose silastic dual-lumen central venous catheters for both collection and transplantation of hematopoietic progenitor cells.
Lazarus HM; Trehan S; Miller R; Fox RM; Creger RJ; Raaf JH
Bone Marrow Transplant; 2000 Apr; 25(7):779-85. PubMed ID: 10745265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multilumen central venous catheters increase risk for catheter-related bloodstream infection: prospective surveillance study.
Templeton A; Schlegel M; Fleisch F; Rettenmund G; Schöbi B; Henz S; Eich G
Infection; 2008 Aug; 36(4):322-7. PubMed ID: 18663408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A prospective study of untunnelled subclavian vein catheters in hematooncology patients.
Huijgens PC; Strack van Schijndel R; Kampman I; Ossenkoppele GJ; Klomp-Gerringa M; van der Putten E
Neth J Med; 1991 Apr; 38(3-4):153-8. PubMed ID: 1881503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. External jugular Groshong catheter is associated with fewer complications than a subclavian Argyle catheter.
Ishizuka M; Nagata H; Takagi K; Horie T; Furihata M; Nakagawa A; Kubota K
Eur Surg Res; 2008; 40(2):197-202. PubMed ID: 17998779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Central venous catheterization in pediatric patients affected by hematological malignancies.
Cogliati AA; Dell'Utri D; Picardi A; Testi AM; Micozzi A; Pasotti E; Rosa G
Haematologica; 1995; 80(5):448-50. PubMed ID: 8566889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The use of central venous catheters in children receiving intensive oncotherapy in a developing country.
Wessels G; Hesseling PB; Moore SW
S Afr J Surg; 1996 Nov; 34(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 9015943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies.
Nelson BE; Mayer AR; Tseng PC; Schwartz PE
Gynecol Oncol; 1994 Apr; 53(1):98-102. PubMed ID: 8175028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Conversion of temporary hemodialysis catheters to permanent hemodialysis catheters: a retrospective study of catheter exchange versus classic de novo placement.
Falk A; Prabhuram N; Parthasarathy S
Semin Dial; 2005; 18(5):425-30. PubMed ID: 16191184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
