OptEase and TrapEase Vena Cava Filters: A Single-Center Experience in 258 Patients

WOS: 000269838400018PubMed ID: 19449061We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the OptEase and TrapEase (both from Cordis, Roden, Netherlands) vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE). Between May 2004 and December 2008, OptEase (permanent/retrievable; n = 228) or TrapEase (permanent; n = 30) vena cava filters were placed in 258 patients (160 female and 98 male; mean age 62 years [range 22 to 97]). Indications were as follows: prophylaxis for PE (n = 239), contraindication for anticoagulation in the presence of PE or DVT (n = 10), and development of PE or DVT despite anticoagulation (n = 9). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for indications, clinical results, and procedure-related complications during placement and retrieval. Clinical PE did not develop in any of the patients. However, radiologic signs of segmental PE were seen in 6 of 66 patients with follow-up imaging data. Migration or fracture of the filter or cava perforation was not seen in any of the patients. Except for a single case of asymptomatic total cava thrombosis, no thrombotic occlusion was observed. One hundred forty-one patients were scheduled to undergo filter removal; however, 17 of them were not suitable for such based on venography evaluation. Removal was attempted in 124 patients and was successful in 115 of these (mean duration of retention 11 days [range 4 to 23]). Nine filters could not be removed. Permanent/retrievable vena cava filters are safe and effective devices for PE prophylaxis and for the management of venous thromboembolism by providing the option to be left in place

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: correlation with Oswestry Disability Index and MR Imaging

Because neither the degree of constriction of the spinal canal considered to be symptomatic for lumbar spinal stenosis nor the relationship between the clinical appearance and the degree of a radiologically verified constriction is clear, a correlation of patient’s disability level and radiographic constriction of the lumbar spinal canal is of interest. The aim of this study was to establish a relationship between the degree of radiologically established anatomical stenosis and the severity of self-assessed Oswestry Disability Index in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Sixty-three consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who were scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled in the study. All patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and completed a self-assessment Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire. Quantitative image evaluation for lumbar spinal stenosis included the dural sac cross-sectional area, and qualitative evaluation of the lateral recess and foraminal stenosis were also performed. Every patient subsequently answered the national translation of the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire and the percentage disability was calculated. Statistical analysis of the data was performed to seek a relationship between radiological stenosis and percentage disability recorded by the Oswestry Disability Index. Upon radiological assessment, 27 of the 63 patients evaluated had severe and 33 patients had moderate central dural sac stenosis; 11 had grade 3 and 27 had grade 2 nerve root compromise in the lateral recess; 22 had grade 3 and 37 had grade 2 foraminal stenosis. On the basis of the percentage disability score, of the 63 patients, 10 patients demonstrated mild disability, 13 patients moderate disability, 25 patients severe disability, 12 patients were crippled and three patients were bedridden. Radiologically, eight patients with severe central stenosis and nine patients with moderate lateral stenosis demonstrated only minimal disability on percentage Oswestry Disability Index scores. Statistical evaluation of central and lateral radiological stenosis versus Oswestry Disability Index percentage scores showed no significant correlation. In conclusion, lumbar spinal stenosis remains a clinico-radiological syndrome, and both the clinical picture and the magnetic resonance imaging findings are important when evaluating and discussing surgery with patients having this diagnosis. MR imaging has to be used to determine the levels to be decompressed