The percutaneous radiological correction rate is 0.5% in upper extremity port device cancer patients

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 675-

  Marcy, Pierre Yves ^a   Italiano, Antoine ^a  

^a CENTRE ANTOINE LACASSAGNE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER PATIENT; DEVICE; FLUOROSCOPY; LETTER; MONITORING; POSITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; VEIN CATHETERIZATION;

CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; CATHETERS, INDWELLING; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; FOREIGN-BODY MIGRATION; HUMANS; MALE; RADIOLOGY, INTERVENTIONAL; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 43249108895     PISSN: 01741551     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-007-9212-5     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Gebauer B, Teichgräber UK, Podrabsky P, et al. (2007) Radiological interventions for correction of central venous port catheter migrations. CardioVasc Interv Radiol 30:668-674
2. Puel V, Caudry M, Le Metayer P, et al. (1993) Superior vena cava thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy given through implanted ports. Cancer 72(7):2248-2852
3. Marcy PY, Bailet C, Descamps B, et al. (2003) Arm port devices: feasibility, efficacy and impact on quality of life in 1000 cancer patients between 19 and 90 years of age. AJR 180(Suppl):63
4. Wong C, Joshi N, Nachimuthu S, et al. (2001) Cough in a patient with an infusion port. Chest 120:1031-1033
5. Forauer AR, Alonzo M (2000) Change in peripherally inserted central catheter tip position with abduction and adduction of the upper extremity. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11(10):1315-1318