Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.4.483

Introducer Curving Technique for the Prevention of Tilting of Transfemoral G$\ddot{u}$nther Tulip Inferior Vena Cava Filter  

Xiao, Liang (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University)
Huang, De-Sheng (Department of Mathematics, College of Basic Medical Science, China Medical University)
Shen, Jing (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University)
Tong, Jia-Jie (Department of Radiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Radiology / v.13, no.4, 2012 , pp. 483-491 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the introducer curving technique is useful in decreasing the degree of tilting of transfemoral Tulip filters. Materials and Methods: The study sample group consisted of 108 patients with deep vein thrombosis who were enrolled and planned to undergo thrombolysis, and who accepted transfemoral Tulip filter insertion procedure. The patients were randomly divided into Group C and Group T. The introducer curving technique was Adopted in Group T. The post-implantation filter tilting angle (ACF) was measured in an anteroposterior projection. The retrieval hook adhering to the vascular wall was measured via tangential cavogram during retrieval. Results: The overall average ACF was 5.8 ${\pm}$ 4.14 degrees. In Group C, the average ACF was 7.1 ${\pm}$ 4.52 degrees. In Group T, the average ACF was 4.4 ${\pm}$ 3.20 degrees. The groups displayed a statistically significant difference (t = 3.573, p = 0.001) in ACF. Additionally, the difference of ACF between the left and right approaches turned out to be statistically significant (7.1 ${\pm}$ 4.59 vs. 5.1 ${\pm}$ 3.82, t = 2.301, p = 0.023). The proportion of severe tilt (ACF ${\geq}10^{\circ}$) in Group T was significantly lower than that in Group C (9.3% vs. 24.1%, ${\chi}^2$ = 4.267, p = 0.039). Between the groups, the difference in the rate of the retrieval hook adhering to the vascular wall was also statistically significant (2.9% vs. 24.2%, ${\chi}^2$ = 5.030, p = 0.025). Conclusion: The introducer curving technique appears to minimize the incidence and extent of transfemoral Tulip filter tilting.
Keywords
Tilt; Prevention; G$\ddot{u}$nther Tulip filter, caval; Transfemoral; Randomized;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Lopera JE, Araki JU, Kirsch D, Qian Z, Brazzini A, Gonzalez A, et al. A modified technique to minimize filter tilting during deployment of the Günther Tulip filter: in vitro study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1539-1544   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Van Ha TG, Vinokur O, Lorenz J, Regalado S, Zangan S, Piano G, et al. Techniques used for difficult retrievals of the Günther Tulip inferior vena cava filter: experience in 32 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:92-99   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Joels CS, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Complications of inferior vena cava filters. Am Surg 2003;69:654-659
4 Kinney TB, Rose SC. Regarding "Limb asymmetry in titanium Greenfield filters: clinically significant?". J Vasc Surg 1998;27:1193-1194
5 Neuerburg J, Günther RW, Rassmussen E, Vorwerk D, Tonn K, Handt S, et al. New retrievable percutaneous vena cava filter: experimental in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1993;16:224-229   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Terhaar OA, Lyon SM, Given MF, Foster AE, Mc Grath F, Lee MJ. Extended interval for retrieval of Günther Tulip filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:1257-1262   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Sag AA, Stavas JM, Burke CT, Dixon RG, Marquess JS, Mauro MA. Analysis of tilt of the Gunther Tulip filter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19:669-676   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Seo TS, Cha IH, Park CM, Kim KA, Lee CH, Choi JW, et al. Detection and correction of anterior or posterior tilting of the Günther-Tulip filter in the inferior vena cava and correction by repositioning: a phantom study and preliminary clinical experiences. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007;18:427-436   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Heit JA. Venous thromboembolism epidemiology: implications for prevention and management. Semin Thromb Hemost 2002;28 Suppl 2:3-13
10 Greenfield LJ, Michna BA. Twelve-year clinical experience with the Greenfield vena caval filter. Surgery 1988;104:706-712
11 Pais SO, Tobin KD, Austin CB, Queral L. Percutaneous insertion of the Greenfield inferior vena cava filter: experience with ninety-six patients. J Vasc Surg 1988;8:460-464
12 Becker DM, Philbrick JT, Selby JB. Inferior vena cava filters. Indications, safety, effectiveness. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:1985-1994   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Liu WC, Do YS, Choo SW, Kim DI, Kim YW, Kim DK, et al. The mid-term efficacy and safety of a permanent nitinol IVC filter (TrapEase). Korean J Radiol 2005;6:110-116   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Kinney TB. Update on inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:425-440   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Berczi V, Bottomley JR, Thomas SM, Taneja S, Gaines PA, Cleveland TJ. Long-term retrievability of IVC filters: should we abandon permanent devices? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:820-827   DOI   ScienceOn
16 PREPIC Study Group. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d'Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation 2005;112:416-422   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Looby S, Given MF, Geoghegan T, McErlean A, Lee MJ. Gunther Tulip retrievable inferior vena caval filters: indications, efficacy, retrieval, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:59-65   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Wicky S, Doenz F, Meuwly JY, Portier F, Schnyder P, Denys A. Clinical experience with retrievable Günther Tulip vena cava filters. J Endovasc Ther 2003;10:994-1000   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Rosenthal D, Wellons ED, Hancock SM, Burkett AB. Retrievability of the Günther Tulip vena cava filter after dwell times longer than 180 days in patients with multiple trauma. J Endovasc Ther 2007;14:406-410   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Hoppe H, Nutting CW, Smouse HR, Vesely TM, Pohl C, Bettmann MA, et al. Gunther Tulip filter retrievability multicenter study including CT follow-up: final report. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:1017-1023   DOI   ScienceOn