ArticleCureus2022
Effectiveness and Safety of Laser-Assisted Removal of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters in a Single Tertiary Care Center.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Removal of Permanent IVC Filters: Techniques and Case Presentation.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Laser-assisted permanent greenfield filter removal with ileocaval stent reconstruction following filter thrombosis, a case report.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaser sheath-assisted removal of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with long dwelling time is a technique that utilizes laser-tipped sheaths. The laser light only penetrates vascular tissue by one hundred microns, causing the target tissues to disintegrate into particles less than 5 microns in size. This approach reduces the energy used during difficult retrieval procedures, allowing permanent filters to be removed in less fluoroscopic and procedural time overall. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe radiology information system and electronic health records were used in this retrospective cohort study to retrieve the data. A total of nine consecutive patients who underwent laser-assisted filter removal utilizing GlideLightTM were included in the study between January 2016 and January 2017. The study took place at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. In this study, five patients were male and four were female with ages ranging from 19 to 57 years with a median age of 31.
resultsDuring the period of the study, a total of nine patients had their IVC filters removed using a laser. The success rate was 100%. The indications were trauma (n=4) followed by deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (n=3) and one patient indication was prolonged immobilization. The dwelling time ranged from seven to 70 months, with a dwelling median of 19 months.
conclusionA laser sheath might be necessary for closed-cell filters in order to improve the likelihood of a successful and secure retrieval. Technical efficiency, filter type, the necessity of applying a laser sheath based on an open versus closed filter design, dwell times, and unfavorable results. As a result, after typical procedures failed to successfully retrieve IVC filters with long dwell durations, laser-assisted filter removal is thought to be practical and safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.