Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Abdom Radiol (NY) ; 2024 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38684548

ABSTRACT

The adoption of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System has significantly changed prostate cancer diagnosis and management. These advancements, alongside novel biomarkers and updated International Society of Uropathology grade groups, have improved cancer detection and prognostication. Despite this progress, varying levels of expertise in mpMRI among radiologists have resulted in inconsistent assessments, potentially leading to unnecessary procedures and diminished confidence in the modality. This review assesses the educational landscape for prostate MRI, highlighting available resources for radiologists at all professional stages. It emphasizes the need for targeted educational strategies to bridge knowledge gaps and improve patient care outcomes in prostate cancer management.

2.
Clin Transplant ; 31(2)2017 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27801505

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the selection, use, and risks of permanent and retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients who have undergone organ transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective review of 35 patients who had an IVCF placed following organ transplantation. Patient demographics, IVCF indication, and eligibility for retrieval were reviewed. Computed tomography (CT) studies showing the filter (n=22) were evaluated independently for IVCF adverse effects. RESULTS: Thirty-two (91%) of 35 patients had retrievable IVCFs placed while three (9%) patients received permanent IVCFs. Filter retrieval was indicated in three of the 32 patients receiving retrievable filters and was performed in two cases. Patients were ineligible for retrieval due to short life expectancy, complications/contraindications to anticoagulation, extended filter dwell time, lost to follow-up, and undetermined therapeutic value of anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Current practices of filter placement usually dictate placing a retrievable IVCF in transplant patients. However, transplant patients are unlikely to be eligible for filter retrieval especially in situations of advanced age and comorbidities. Given the low incidence of eligibility for retrieval in this patient population, these results suggest preferential placement of permanent filters may reduce the potential morbidity due to filter-related complications, such as strut perforation, in transplant patients.


Subject(s)
Graft Rejection/prevention & control , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Vena Cava Filters/statistics & numerical data , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Device Removal , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Graft Rejection/etiology , Graft Survival , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Vena Cava, Inferior
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...