Surgical Innovation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sing, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Heniford, B. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sing, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Heniford, B. T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Surgical Innovation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 195-202 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/155335060501200303

Optional Vena Cava Filters for Patients with High Thromboembolic Risk: Questions to be Answered

Ronald F. Sing, DO

Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC; Department of Surgery/MEB 601, 1000 Blythe Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28203 (ron.sing{at}carolinashealthcare.org).

Frederick B. Rogers, MD

Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

Yuri W. Novitsky, MD

Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC

B. Todd Heniford, MD

Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC

The use of vena cava filters has increased rapidly over the past few years to more than 140,000 filters inserted worldwide in 2003. Continued improvements in filter design have increased the safety of intravascular caval filtration. Although there are many factors attributed to this increase, the most significant contributing factor has been the development of optional vena cava filters. That is, filters that can be left as a permanent device or can be removed endovascularly at a later date. Three filters are approved for removal in the United States, the Günther Tulip, the OptEase, and the Recovery. Recent reports have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of these devices in appropriate patients, but a number of questions have arisen regarding their use.

Key Words: intravascular caval filtration • optional vena cava filters • endovascular


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Intensive Care MedHome page
F. Rogers, J. A. Rebuck, and R. F. Sing
Venous Thromboembolism in Trauma: An Update for the Intensive Care Unit Practitioner
J Intensive Care Med, January 1, 2007; 22(1): 26 - 37.
[Abstract] [PDF]