Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room

The frequency of insertion of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) among traumatized patients has increased nationally. That has placed a substantial operational and economic burden upon trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast successful implantation, morbidit...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American surgeon 2006-03, Vol.72 (3), p.213-216
Hauptverfasser: GONZALEZ, Richard P, COHEN, Mabelle, BOSARGE, Patrick, RYAN, Jeffrey, RODNING, Charles
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 216
container_issue 3
container_start_page 213
container_title The American surgeon
container_volume 72
creator GONZALEZ, Richard P
COHEN, Mabelle
BOSARGE, Patrick
RYAN, Jeffrey
RODNING, Charles
description The frequency of insertion of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) among traumatized patients has increased nationally. That has placed a substantial operational and economic burden upon trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast successful implantation, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic IVCF insertion in a surgical-trauma intensive care unit (STICU) versus an operating room (OR). A retrospective chart review was conducted of all trauma patients who received a prophylactic IVCF at an urban Level I trauma center between January 1999 and December 2003. Data were collected to identify patient demographics, indications, anatomical site of insertion, hospital location of insertion, hospital days before insertion, and complications associated with insertion. One hundred thirty-four patients underwent prophylactic IVCF during the study period: seventy-eight (58%) in the OR and fifty-six (42%) in the STICU. The average age of patients for the OR and STICU groups were 38.6 years and 39.6 years, respectively. The average number of days to IVCF insertion was 6.5 days and 7.0 days in the OR and STICU groups, respectively. Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the OR were orthopedic injury (60%), spinal cord injury (25%), and head injury (15%). Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the STICU were head injury (38%), orthopedic injuries (34%), and spinal cord injury (25%). Three (3.8%) patients in the OR group and two (3.6%) patients in the STICU group required a change of anatomic insertion site from the femoral to the internal jugular vein. There were two (2.6%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the OR and two (3.5%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the STICU (P > 0.05). Insertion of IVCF in the STICU decreased patient-cost by an average of dollar 1636 per patient. Prophylactic IVCF insertion in an STICU is cost-effective and can be performed with similar success and complication rates to IVCF insertion in an OR.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/000313480607200303
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67774461</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1007148271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-d539ddcde9d87bc27218c1d101790a2610ddbafce4b9ea1a68f1425c392ee1d23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpl0U1r3DAQBmBRWprNxx_ooYhCc3OjkSzL7i2EfgQCzaE9G600ThVsaTuSF_LvqyULgfYkiXneYdAw9g7EJwBjroQQClTbi04YWe9CvWIb0Fo3Qy_Va7Y5gOYgTthpzo_12XYa3rIT6LRWIMWGPdxT2v1-mq0rwfEQJ6SQiO8xWu7s3vIpzAWpVjJSCSnyqZYL2XWx_DO_jQVjDnusmJCvMZSapbxmnnZItoT4wCml5Zy9meyc8eJ4nrFfX7_8vPne3P34dntzfde4VsjSeK0G753Hwfdm66SR0DvwIMAMwsoOhPdbOzlstwNasF0_QSu1U4NEBC_VGbt87ruj9GfFXMYlZIfzbCOmNY-dMaZtO6jwwz_wMa0U62yjBNlDVW1F8hk5SjkTTuOOwmLpaQQxHnYw_r-DGnp_7LxuF_QvkeOnV_DxCGx2dp7IRhfyizO617If1F9lIo8Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>212817444</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>GONZALEZ, Richard P ; COHEN, Mabelle ; BOSARGE, Patrick ; RYAN, Jeffrey ; RODNING, Charles</creator><creatorcontrib>GONZALEZ, Richard P ; COHEN, Mabelle ; BOSARGE, Patrick ; RYAN, Jeffrey ; RODNING, Charles</creatorcontrib><description>The frequency of insertion of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) among traumatized patients has increased nationally. That has placed a substantial operational and economic burden upon trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast successful implantation, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic IVCF insertion in a surgical-trauma intensive care unit (STICU) versus an operating room (OR). A retrospective chart review was conducted of all trauma patients who received a prophylactic IVCF at an urban Level I trauma center between January 1999 and December 2003. Data were collected to identify patient demographics, indications, anatomical site of insertion, hospital location of insertion, hospital days before insertion, and complications associated with insertion. One hundred thirty-four patients underwent prophylactic IVCF during the study period: seventy-eight (58%) in the OR and fifty-six (42%) in the STICU. The average age of patients for the OR and STICU groups were 38.6 years and 39.6 years, respectively. The average number of days to IVCF insertion was 6.5 days and 7.0 days in the OR and STICU groups, respectively. Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the OR were orthopedic injury (60%), spinal cord injury (25%), and head injury (15%). Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the STICU were head injury (38%), orthopedic injuries (34%), and spinal cord injury (25%). Three (3.8%) patients in the OR group and two (3.6%) patients in the STICU group required a change of anatomic insertion site from the femoral to the internal jugular vein. There were two (2.6%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the OR and two (3.5%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the STICU (P &gt; 0.05). Insertion of IVCF in the STICU decreased patient-cost by an average of dollar 1636 per patient. Prophylactic IVCF insertion in an STICU is cost-effective and can be performed with similar success and complication rates to IVCF insertion in an OR.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-1348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-9823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000313480607200303</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16553120</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMSUAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Surgical Congress</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cost control ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Filters ; Follow-Up Studies ; General aspects ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intensive Care Units ; Length of Stay ; Medical sciences ; Operating Rooms ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Surgery ; Thromboembolism - etiology ; Thromboembolism - prevention &amp; control ; Transplants &amp; implants ; Trauma care ; Trauma centers ; Treatment Outcome ; Veins &amp; arteries ; Vena Cava Filters - economics ; Vena Cava Filters - standards ; Wounds and Injuries - complications ; Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><ispartof>The American surgeon, 2006-03, Vol.72 (3), p.213-216</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright The Southeastern Surgical Congress Mar 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-d539ddcde9d87bc27218c1d101790a2610ddbafce4b9ea1a68f1425c392ee1d23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-d539ddcde9d87bc27218c1d101790a2610ddbafce4b9ea1a68f1425c392ee1d23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27926,27927</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17585289$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16553120$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>GONZALEZ, Richard P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, Mabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOSARGE, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RYAN, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RODNING, Charles</creatorcontrib><title>Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room</title><title>The American surgeon</title><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><description>The frequency of insertion of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) among traumatized patients has increased nationally. That has placed a substantial operational and economic burden upon trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast successful implantation, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic IVCF insertion in a surgical-trauma intensive care unit (STICU) versus an operating room (OR). A retrospective chart review was conducted of all trauma patients who received a prophylactic IVCF at an urban Level I trauma center between January 1999 and December 2003. Data were collected to identify patient demographics, indications, anatomical site of insertion, hospital location of insertion, hospital days before insertion, and complications associated with insertion. One hundred thirty-four patients underwent prophylactic IVCF during the study period: seventy-eight (58%) in the OR and fifty-six (42%) in the STICU. The average age of patients for the OR and STICU groups were 38.6 years and 39.6 years, respectively. The average number of days to IVCF insertion was 6.5 days and 7.0 days in the OR and STICU groups, respectively. Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the OR were orthopedic injury (60%), spinal cord injury (25%), and head injury (15%). Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the STICU were head injury (38%), orthopedic injuries (34%), and spinal cord injury (25%). Three (3.8%) patients in the OR group and two (3.6%) patients in the STICU group required a change of anatomic insertion site from the femoral to the internal jugular vein. There were two (2.6%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the OR and two (3.5%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the STICU (P &gt; 0.05). Insertion of IVCF in the STICU decreased patient-cost by an average of dollar 1636 per patient. Prophylactic IVCF insertion in an STICU is cost-effective and can be performed with similar success and complication rates to IVCF insertion in an OR.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Filters</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intensive Care Units</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Operating Rooms</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Thromboembolism - etiology</subject><subject>Thromboembolism - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><subject>Trauma care</subject><subject>Trauma centers</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veins &amp; arteries</subject><subject>Vena Cava Filters - economics</subject><subject>Vena Cava Filters - standards</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - complications</subject><subject>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</subject><issn>0003-1348</issn><issn>1555-9823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpl0U1r3DAQBmBRWprNxx_ooYhCc3OjkSzL7i2EfgQCzaE9G600ThVsaTuSF_LvqyULgfYkiXneYdAw9g7EJwBjroQQClTbi04YWe9CvWIb0Fo3Qy_Va7Y5gOYgTthpzo_12XYa3rIT6LRWIMWGPdxT2v1-mq0rwfEQJ6SQiO8xWu7s3vIpzAWpVjJSCSnyqZYL2XWx_DO_jQVjDnusmJCvMZSapbxmnnZItoT4wCml5Zy9meyc8eJ4nrFfX7_8vPne3P34dntzfde4VsjSeK0G753Hwfdm66SR0DvwIMAMwsoOhPdbOzlstwNasF0_QSu1U4NEBC_VGbt87ruj9GfFXMYlZIfzbCOmNY-dMaZtO6jwwz_wMa0U62yjBNlDVW1F8hk5SjkTTuOOwmLpaQQxHnYw_r-DGnp_7LxuF_QvkeOnV_DxCGx2dp7IRhfyizO617If1F9lIo8Q</recordid><startdate>20060301</startdate><enddate>20060301</enddate><creator>GONZALEZ, Richard P</creator><creator>COHEN, Mabelle</creator><creator>BOSARGE, Patrick</creator><creator>RYAN, Jeffrey</creator><creator>RODNING, Charles</creator><general>Southeastern Surgical Congress</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060301</creationdate><title>Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room</title><author>GONZALEZ, Richard P ; COHEN, Mabelle ; BOSARGE, Patrick ; RYAN, Jeffrey ; RODNING, Charles</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-d539ddcde9d87bc27218c1d101790a2610ddbafce4b9ea1a68f1425c392ee1d23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Filters</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intensive Care Units</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Operating Rooms</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Thromboembolism - etiology</topic><topic>Thromboembolism - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><topic>Trauma care</topic><topic>Trauma centers</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veins &amp; arteries</topic><topic>Vena Cava Filters - economics</topic><topic>Vena Cava Filters - standards</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - complications</topic><topic>Wounds and Injuries - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GONZALEZ, Richard P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COHEN, Mabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOSARGE, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RYAN, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RODNING, Charles</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GONZALEZ, Richard P</au><au>COHEN, Mabelle</au><au>BOSARGE, Patrick</au><au>RYAN, Jeffrey</au><au>RODNING, Charles</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room</atitle><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><date>2006-03-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>72</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>213</spage><epage>216</epage><pages>213-216</pages><issn>0003-1348</issn><eissn>1555-9823</eissn><coden>AMSUAW</coden><abstract>The frequency of insertion of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) among traumatized patients has increased nationally. That has placed a substantial operational and economic burden upon trauma centers. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast successful implantation, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic IVCF insertion in a surgical-trauma intensive care unit (STICU) versus an operating room (OR). A retrospective chart review was conducted of all trauma patients who received a prophylactic IVCF at an urban Level I trauma center between January 1999 and December 2003. Data were collected to identify patient demographics, indications, anatomical site of insertion, hospital location of insertion, hospital days before insertion, and complications associated with insertion. One hundred thirty-four patients underwent prophylactic IVCF during the study period: seventy-eight (58%) in the OR and fifty-six (42%) in the STICU. The average age of patients for the OR and STICU groups were 38.6 years and 39.6 years, respectively. The average number of days to IVCF insertion was 6.5 days and 7.0 days in the OR and STICU groups, respectively. Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the OR were orthopedic injury (60%), spinal cord injury (25%), and head injury (15%). Indications for IVCF among patients who had placement in the STICU were head injury (38%), orthopedic injuries (34%), and spinal cord injury (25%). Three (3.8%) patients in the OR group and two (3.6%) patients in the STICU group required a change of anatomic insertion site from the femoral to the internal jugular vein. There were two (2.6%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the OR and two (3.5%) complications associated with IVCF insertion in the STICU (P &gt; 0.05). Insertion of IVCF in the STICU decreased patient-cost by an average of dollar 1636 per patient. Prophylactic IVCF insertion in an STICU is cost-effective and can be performed with similar success and complication rates to IVCF insertion in an OR.</abstract><cop>Atlanta, GA</cop><pub>Southeastern Surgical Congress</pub><pmid>16553120</pmid><doi>10.1177/000313480607200303</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-1348
ispartof The American surgeon, 2006-03, Vol.72 (3), p.213-216
issn 0003-1348
1555-9823
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67774461
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Cost control
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Filters
Follow-Up Studies
General aspects
Hospitals
Humans
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Medical sciences
Operating Rooms
Patients
Retrospective Studies
Risk factors
Surgery
Thromboembolism - etiology
Thromboembolism - prevention & control
Transplants & implants
Trauma care
Trauma centers
Treatment Outcome
Veins & arteries
Vena Cava Filters - economics
Vena Cava Filters - standards
Wounds and Injuries - complications
Wounds and Injuries - surgery
title Prophylactic inferior vena cava filter insertion for trauma : Intensive care unit versus operating room
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T18%3A26%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prophylactic%20inferior%20vena%20cava%20filter%20insertion%20for%20trauma%20:%20Intensive%20care%20unit%20versus%20operating%20room&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20surgeon&rft.au=GONZALEZ,%20Richard%20P&rft.date=2006-03-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=213&rft.epage=216&rft.pages=213-216&rft.issn=0003-1348&rft.eissn=1555-9823&rft.coden=AMSUAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000313480607200303&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1007148271%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=212817444&rft_id=info:pmid/16553120&rfr_iscdi=true