2013
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2013(03)le03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Which device should be chosen for the percutaneous closure of post-traumatic ventricular septal defects?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 The rationale for using these devices is due to the length of this type of post-traumatic defect, which is usually longer (>9mm); therefore, Amplatzer® prostheses are not appropriate. 6 Nonetheless, there is no consensus on selection of devices, 7 the choice being made by individualized clinical criteria, and according to the morphology of the septal defect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 The rationale for using these devices is due to the length of this type of post-traumatic defect, which is usually longer (>9mm); therefore, Amplatzer® prostheses are not appropriate. 6 Nonetheless, there is no consensus on selection of devices, 7 the choice being made by individualized clinical criteria, and according to the morphology of the septal defect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These devices include amplatzer® VSD Occluder, atrial septal defect (ASD) Occluder, and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) Occluder 2 , 6 , 7 . However, there is no clear consensus on device selection 8 . The investigators present their experience with choosing devices for percutaneous VSD closure in this paper.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%