The original stainless steel Greenfield filter was designed for operative insertion, and when percutaneous techniques became available, a titanium model of the filter was developed to allow it to be inserted through a 14 French sheath. From the filter registry of 783 TGF devices from 1989 to 1996, we have follow-up of 373 patients, which is the majority of those still alive 1 year following placement. The long-term caval patency rate was 97.6%, and there was protection against recurrent embolism in 97% of patients with only 2.9% documented or suspected recurrent embolism rate. Therefore, the device has met the standards established by the stainless steel filter, and has enabled patients to enjoy long-term protection without the added risk of vena caval obstruction.
Greenfield LJ , Michna B.Twelve-year clinical experience with the Greenfield vena caval filter. Surg104(4):706-712, 1988.
2.
Pais O., Mirvis S., De Orchis D.Percutaneous insertion of the Kimray-Greenfield filter: technical considerations and problems. Radiology165:377-381, 1987.
3.
Golueke P., Garrett W., Thompson J., Smith B., Talkington C.Interruption of the vena cava by means of the Greenfield filter: expanding the indications. Surg103(1):111-117, 1988.
4.
Tadavarthy S. , Castaneda-Zuniga W., Salamonowitz E.Kimray-Greenfield filter: percutaneous introduction. Radiology151:525-526, 1984.
5.
Greenfield LJ , Savin M.Comparison of titanium and stainless steel Greenfield vena caval filters. Surg106(5):820-828, 1989.
6.
Greenfield LJ, Cho KJProgress in Vena Caval Devices: The Titanium Greenfield Vena Caval Filter, Current Critical Problems in Vascular Surgery. Veith FJ (ed.). St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc., 1989, pp 151-153.
7.
Greenfield LJ , Cho KJ, Pais O., Van Aman M.Preliminary clinical experience with the Titanium Greenfield vena caval filter. Arch Surg124:657-659, 1989.
8.
Greenfield LJ , Cho KJ, Tauscher J.Evolution of hook design for fixation of the titanium Greenfield filter. J Vasc Surg12(3):345-353, 1990.
Emanuelli G. , Gatti AM, Cigada A., Brunella MFPhysico-chemical observations on a failed Greenfield vena cava filter. J Cardiovasc Surg36:121-125, 1995.
17.
Greenfield LJ , Proctor MCCurrent indications for caval interruption: should they be liberalized in view of improving technology? Semin in Vascular Surgery9(1):50-58, 1996.
18.
Greenfield LJ, Proctor MCIndications and techniques of inferior vena cava interruption. In: Handbook of Venous Disorders. Gloviczki P , Yao JST (eds.). London: Chapman & Hall Medical, 1996, pp 306-320.
19.
Rodriguez JL , Lopez JM, Proctor MC, et al. Early placement of prophylactic vena caval filters in injured patients at high risk for a pulmonary embolism. Trauma40(5):797-804, 1996.
20.
Cohen J., Tenenbaum M., Citron M.Greenfield filter as primary therapy for deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer. Surg109(1):12-15, 1991.
21.
Cantelmo N. , Menzoian J., Logerfo FW, Fasulo G., Mozden PJClinical experience with vena caval filters in high-risk cancer patients. Cancer50:341-344, 1982.
