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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American surgeon 2006-03, Vol.72 (3), p.213-216 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 > 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 & 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</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&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 > 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 & control</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Trauma care</subject><subject>Trauma centers</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Veins & 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 & control</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Trauma care</topic><topic>Trauma centers</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Veins & 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 & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 > 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 |