ArticleAME case reports2026
Novel endovascular retrieval of duodenal-penetrating inferior vena cava filters: a report of two cases and technical considerations.
Article in AME case reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are widely used to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with venous thromboembolism. However, failure to remove retrievable filters within the recommended time window leads to significant long-term complications, the incidence of which has been gradually increasing. While filter tilt, adhesion, and venous wall penetration are commonly encountered, rare complications such as duodenal perforation by a filter foot or recovery hook present unique clinical challenges. Conventionally, such cases have necessitated open surgical removal due to the high risk of massive hemorrhage or bowel injury associated with standard endovascular retrieval techniques. Conventional endovascular retrieval is contraindicated for permanent filters or when the recovery hook has penetrated the IVC wall. This case series demonstrates the successful application of a novel endovascular technique in these two extreme scenarios. Case Description: We describe two patients with IVC filters that had been implanted for 9 and 8 years, respectively, who presented with epigastric pain and were found on gastroscopy to have a filter foot penetrating the duodenal wall. In the first case, a permanent Simon Nitinol filter lacked a recovery hook; in the second, the recovery hook of a Günther Tulip filter had itself pierced the IVC wall, and the filter foot was located in close proximity to the abdominal aorta. Both patients were deemed poor candidates for conventional intervention or refused open surgery. A novel endovascular technique was employed utilizing a combination of balloon-assisted intimal peeling, customized LOOP technology applied to the filter body, and real-time intra-arterial roadmap guidance via a pigtail catheter in the aorta. Conclusions: This novel endovascular technique offers a minimally invasive alternative for complex cases involving permanent filters and IVC-penetrating recovery hooks, with potential applicability in experienced interventional centers, though further validation is required.
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.