ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Laparoscopic removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters after failed or anticipated technically challenging endovascular retrieval: a retrospective case series of 28 patients.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic retrieval of inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) offers a minimally invasive alternative for patients with failed percutaneous retrieval or anticipated technically challenging endovascular retrieval, but systematic evaluations are limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 28 patients who underwent surgical retrieval of IVCFs after failed endovascular retrieval or after preoperative imaging suggested anticipated technically challenging or potentially unsafe endovascular retrieval. Surgical techniques, perioperative outcomes, and a sensitivity analysis were described. Results: Laparoscopic retrieval was attempted in all 28 patients and completed laparoscopically in 25 patients, yielding a laparoscopic completion rate of 89.3%. Three patients required conversion to open surgery, corresponding to a conversion rate of 10.7%. Complete filter removal was achieved in 27 patients, resulting in an overall technical success rate of 96.4% when open conversion cases were included. One patient experienced intraoperative IVCF injury with massive hemorrhage and died in the early postoperative period despite conversion to open surgery, vascular repair, transfusion, and intensive care support. No routine caval occlusion was required in completed laparoscopic cases. During follow-up, no recurrent pulmonary embolism, symptomatic IVCF occlusion, or procedure-related late mortality was observed among surviving patients. Conclusions: Laparoscopic IVCF retrieval may be a feasible second-line option in selected patients with failed or anticipated technically challenging endovascular retrieval. The laparoscopic completion rate should be distinguished from the overall technical success rate, which includes cases completed after open conversion. Because this study lacked a comparator group, these findings should be interpreted as descriptive and should not be used to infer superiority over open surgery or advanced endovascular techniques.
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.