PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility and safety of removing retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with struts external to the IVC wall on computed tomography (CT) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 64 IVC filter retrievals from 62 patients over a 5-year period. CT images obtained before retrieval were used to describe the various imaging characteristics of filter interactions with the IVC wall. Patient medical records were reviewed for filter type, results of filter removal with standard or nonstandard techniques, and complications. RESULTS: Filter struts outside the IVC wall were a common finding on CT with 55 (85.9%) filters showing some degree of perforation. Of 64 filters, 57 (89.1%) were removed successfully; 7 (10.9%) filters could not be removed because of incorporation of filter struts or tip into the IVC wall. Before retrieval, filter fracture was detected in eight (12.5%) cases, and IVC stenosis was present in three (4.7%) cases. No major complications occurred during any retrieval. Two (3.1%) cases were complicated by postprocedure abdominal pain. Both cases clinically resolved, and no abnormalities were detected on postprocedure CT. CONCLUSIONS: The appearance of filter struts tenting or penetrating the IVC wall is a common finding on CT performed before filter retrieval. IVC filters with these findings can be removed safely and should not be a contraindication for IVC filter retrieval.
PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility and safety of removing retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with struts external to the IVC wall on computed tomography (CT) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 64 IVC filter retrievals from 62 patients over a 5-year period. CT images obtained before retrieval were used to describe the various imaging characteristics of filter interactions with the IVC wall. Patient medical records were reviewed for filter type, results of filter removal with standard or nonstandard techniques, and complications. RESULTS: Filter struts outside the IVC wall were a common finding on CT with 55 (85.9%) filters showing some degree of perforation. Of 64 filters, 57 (89.1%) were removed successfully; 7 (10.9%) filters could not be removed because of incorporation of filter struts or tip into the IVC wall. Before retrieval, filter fracture was detected in eight (12.5%) cases, and IVC stenosis was present in three (4.7%) cases. No major complications occurred during any retrieval. Two (3.1%) cases were complicated by postprocedure abdominal pain. Both cases clinically resolved, and no abnormalities were detected on postprocedure CT. CONCLUSIONS: The appearance of filter struts tenting or penetrating the IVC wall is a common finding on CT performed before filter retrieval. IVC filters with these findings can be removed safely and should not be a contraindication for IVC filter retrieval.
Authors: D Laganà; G Carrafiello; D Lumia; F A Vizzari; G Xhepa; M Mangini; F Fontana; C Fugazzola Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Anthony K Guzman; Mahmoud Zahra; Scott O Trerotola; Leslie J Raffini; Maxim Itkin; Marc S Keller; Anne Marie Cahill Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-01-21