• Olufoladare G Olorunsola, Maureen P Kohi, Nicholas Fidelman, Antonio C Westphalen, Pallav K Kolli, Andrew G Taylor, Roy L Gordon, Jeanne M LaBerge, and Robert K Kerlan.
• Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., Room 391, Box 0628, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. dare.olorunsola@ucsf.edu
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Apr 1; 24 (4): 566-71.

PurposeTo compare the frequency of vena caval penetration by the struts of the Option and Günther Tulip cone filters on postplacement computed tomography (CT) imaging.Materials And MethodsAll patients who had an Option or Günther Tulip inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placed between January 2010 and May 2012 were identified retrospectively from medical records. Of the 208 IVC filters placed, the positions of 58 devices (21 Option filters, 37 Günther Tulip filters [GTFs]) were documented on follow-up CT examinations obtained for reasons unrelated to filter placement. In cases when multiple CT studies were obtained after placement, each study was reviewed, for a total of 80 examinations. Images were assessed for evidence of caval wall penetration by filter components, noting the number of penetrating struts and any effect on pericaval tissues.ResultsPenetration of at least one strut was observed in 17% of all filters imaged by CT between 1 and 447 days following placement. Although there was no significant difference in the overall prevalence of penetration when comparing the Option filter and GTF (Option, 10%; GTF, 22%), only GTFs showed time-dependent penetration, with penetration becoming more likely after prolonged indwelling times. No patient had damage to pericaval tissues or documented symptoms attributed to penetration.ConclusionsAlthough the Günther Tulip and Option filters exhibit caval penetration at CT imaging, only the GTF exhibits progressive penetration over time.Copyright © 2013 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

32 keywords...

hide…