Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:4023218rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0016441lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4023218lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0180860lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4023218lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0443252lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:dateCreated1985-9-16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:abstractTextSixty-nine patients with a Greenfield inferior vena cava (IVC) filter in place for 1-9 years were evaluated with supine abdominal radiographs. In 22 patients (32%) the filter span diameter had increased by 3-11 mm, and in six patients (9%) it had decreased by 3-18 mm. Twenty patients (29%) had caudad migration of 3-18 mm, and four (6%) had cephalad migration. In five patients (7%) the filter was at an angle of more than 16 degrees from the vertical. A decrease in filter span of 7 mm or more may result in IVC occlusion, whereas an increase of 6 mm or more may result in caval wall penetration. Caudad migration may be caused by a fibrous reaction around the struts which slowly draws the filter caudally. A change in filter angle may result from displacement of a strut into the right renal vein as well as from physiologic changes. The abdominal radiograph is a valuable method for follow-up study of patients with Greenfield filters if the filter position, span, migration, and angle are noted in the report.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:monthSeplld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:issn0033-8419lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GreenfieldL...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MessmerJ MJMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:volume156lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:pagination613-8lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:dateRevised2004-11-17lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4023218-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4023218-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4023218-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4023218-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4023218-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:year1985lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:articleTitleGreenfield caval filters: long-term radiographic follow-up study.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4023218pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:4023218lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:4023218lld:pubmed