1998
DOI: 10.1007/s003300050357
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safe and easy power injection of contrast material through a central line

Abstract: Power-assisted injection of contrast material into an antecubital vein is commonly used in CT and has been proven superior to manual injection. Power-assisted injection through a central line bares the risk of rupturing the line because manual control over the pressure applied by the power injector is lacking. We present a simple safety device which allows manual control of the pressure by means of an interposed three-way stopcock combined with a small syringe for pressure equalization.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Twenty-three articles were considered eligible for answering the research question after selection based on title and abstract. Seventeen articles were excluded during full text screening because of the following reasons: incorrect domain (n = 1) [9], outcome not focusing on safety, efficacy, and complications (n = 1) [10], CVC use in pediatrics (n = 7) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], in vitro studies (n = 4) [18], [19], [20], [21], no original article (n = 3) [1], [22], [23], and not meeting language requirements (n = 1) [24]. During cross referencing, one study was included missed by the initial search [25].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Twenty-three articles were considered eligible for answering the research question after selection based on title and abstract. Seventeen articles were excluded during full text screening because of the following reasons: incorrect domain (n = 1) [9], outcome not focusing on safety, efficacy, and complications (n = 1) [10], CVC use in pediatrics (n = 7) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], in vitro studies (n = 4) [18], [19], [20], [21], no original article (n = 3) [1], [22], [23], and not meeting language requirements (n = 1) [24]. During cross referencing, one study was included missed by the initial search [25].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%