Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 28(10): 1353-1362, 2017 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28821379

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To demonstrate rates of successful filter conversion and 6-month major device-related adverse events in subjects with converted caval filters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An investigational device exemption multicenter, prospective, single-arm study was performed at 11 sites enrolling 149 patients. The VenaTech Convertible Vena Cava Filter (B. Braun Interventional Systems, Inc, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) was implanted in 149 patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindication to or failure of anticoagulation (n = 119), with high-risk trauma (n = 14), and for surgical prophylaxis (n = 16). When the patient was no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism as determined by clinical assessment, an attempt at filter conversion was made. Follow-up of converted patients (n = 93) was conducted at 30 days, 3 months, and 6 months after conversion. Patients who did not undergo a conversion attempt (n = 53) had follow-up at 6 months after implant. RESULTS: All implants were successful. One 7-day migration to the right atrium required surgical removal. Technical success rate for filter conversion was 92.7% (89/96). Mean time from placement to conversion was 130.7 days (range, 15-391 d). No major conversion-related events were reported. The mean conversion procedure time was 30.7 minutes (range, 7-135 min). There were 89 converted and 32 unconverted patients who completed 6-month follow-up with no delayed complications. CONCLUSIONS: The VenaTech Convertible filter has a high conversion rate and low 6-month device-related adverse event rate. Further studies are necessary to determine long-term safety and efficacy in both converted and unconverted patients.


Asunto(s)
Embolia Pulmonar/etiología , Embolia Pulmonar/prevención & control , Filtros de Vena Cava , Tromboembolia Venosa/complicaciones , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Diseño de Prótesis , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 27(12): 1779-1785, 2016 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27670943

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess adoption and survey-based satisfaction rates following deployment of standardized interventional radiology (IR) procedure reports across multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized reporting templates for 5 common interventional procedures (central venous access, inferior vena cava [IVC] filter insertion, IVC filter removal, uterine artery embolization, and vertebral augmentation) were distributed to 20 IR practices in a prospective quality-improvement study. Participating sites edited the reports according to institutional preferences and deployed them for a 1-year pilot study concluding in July 2015. Study compliance was measured by sampling 20 reports of each procedure type at each institution, and surveys of interventionalists and referring physicians were performed. Modifications to the standardized reporting templates at each site were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten institutions deployed the standardized reports, with 8 achieving deployment of 3-12 months. The mean report usage rate was 57%. Each site modified the original reports, with 26% mean reduction in length, 18% mean reduction in wordiness, and 60% mean reduction in the number of forced fill-in fields requiring user input. Linear-regression analysis revealed that reduced number of forced fill-in fields correlated significantly with increased usage rate (R2 = 0.444; P = .05). Surveys revealed high satisfaction rates among referring physicians but lower satisfaction rates among interventional radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized report adoption rates increased when reports were simplified by reducing the number of forced fill-in fields. Referring physicians preferred the standardized reports, whereas interventional radiologists preferred standard narrative reports.


Asunto(s)
Documentación/normas , Control de Formularios y Registros/normas , Registros Médicos/normas , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/normas , Radiografía Intervencional/normas , Cateterismo Venoso Central/normas , Remoción de Dispositivos/normas , Documentación/métodos , Femenino , Adhesión a Directriz/normas , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Proyectos Piloto , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Estudios Prospectivos , Implantación de Prótesis/instrumentación , Implantación de Prótesis/normas , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Radiografía Intervencional/métodos , Estados Unidos , Embolización de la Arteria Uterina/normas , Filtros de Vena Cava , Vertebroplastia/normas
3.
J Endourol ; 30(2): 170-6, 2016 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26154481

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare cost of percutaneous cryoablation vs open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy of T1a renal masses from the hospital perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared cost, clinical and tumor data of 37 percutaneous cryoablations to 26 open and 102 robot-assisted partial nephrectomies. Total cost was the sum of direct and indirect cost of procedural and periprocedural variables. Clinical data included demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), hospitalization time, complication rate, ICU admission rate, and 30-day readmission rates. Tumor data included size, RENAL nephrometry score, and malignancy rate. Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and Fisher's exact or chi-square tests for categorical data. RESULTS: Mean total cost was lower for percutaneous cryoablation than open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $6067 vs $11392 or $11830 (p<0.0001) with lower cost of procedure room: $1516 vs $3272 or $3254 (p<0.0001), room and board: $95 vs $1907 or $1106 (p<0.0001), anesthesia: $684 vs $1223 or $1468 (p<0.0001), and laboratory/pathology fees: $205 vs $804 or $720 (p<0.0001). Supply and device cost was higher than open: $2596 vs $1352 (p<0.0001), but lower than robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: $3207 (p=0.002). Mean hospitalization times were lower for percutaneous cryoablation (p<0.0001), while age and CCI were higher (p<0.0001). No differences in tumor size, nephrometry score, malignancy rate complication, ICU, or 30-day readmission rates were observed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous cryoablation can be performed at significantly lower cost than open and robotic partial nephrectomies for similar masses.


Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Renales/cirugía , Ablación por Catéter/economía , Criocirugía/economía , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Neoplasias Renales/cirugía , Nefrectomía/economía , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carcinoma de Células Renales/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/economía
4.
Emerg Radiol ; 9(1): 32-4, 2002 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15290597

RESUMEN

We present the CT and clinical findings in a 21-year old male who presented to the emergency department following bystander trauma during the rescue effort of the World Trade Center disaster.

5.
Eur Spine J ; 12(3): 307-13, 2003 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12687440

RESUMEN

The objective of this cadaveric biomechanical study was to establish further bovine spines as models for evaluating lumbar interbody allografts and to provide guidance for their use in pediatric humans. It is unknown whether interbody allografts can be used in the pediatric spine without failure of the host vertebral bone. Allografts were placed in cow and calf spines and loaded in compression. The cow spines were much stronger and stiffer than the calf, but moderate in vivo activities were estimated to result in loads on the allograft constructs that would result in host bone failure. Bovine spines were established as suitable models for the compressive behavior of interbody allografts in the human spine, when bone density is considered. Interbody allografts should continue to be used with adjunctive instrumentation so as to preclude host bone failure.


Asunto(s)
Envejecimiento/fisiología , Supervivencia de Injerto/fisiología , Vértebras Lumbares/fisiología , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Adulto , Animales , Peso Corporal/fisiología , Densidad Ósea/fisiología , Bovinos , Niño , Humanos , Fijadores Internos , Vértebras Lumbares/anatomía & histología , Modelos Animales , Valores de Referencia , Análisis de Regresión , Estrés Mecánico , Trasplante Homólogo/instrumentación , Trasplante Homólogo/métodos , Soporte de Peso/fisiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA