Objective: To explore the clinical application indications, filter selection and filter removal techniques of inferior vena cava filter. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 108 cases of inferior vena cava filter implantation in the Department of Vascular Surgery, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region from January 2018 to February 2019 was performed. One hundred and eight patients with inferior vena cava filter were eligible for filter placement, including 50 males and 58 females; the average age was 59 years, and the age ranged from 23 to 90 years. Different types of inferior vena cava filters were selected according to the patient's condition, the location of the thrombus, the type of surgery and the prognosis of the disease. In this study, lower extremity vascular ultrasound was performed by the outpatient in 2 weeks after the filter placement, 1 month after the operation, 2 months after the operation, and 3 months after the operation. The inferior vena cava filter was recovered by a catcher. Loop technology, Loop and biopsy forceps were used for patients with difficult filter recovery. After removal of the filter, the angiography confirmed the integrity of the inferior vena cava wall. Observe whether the filter was completed, deformed, broken and whether there was thrombus in the filter. Results: The removal of inferior vena cava filter was performed in patients with no free floating thrombus or fresh thrombus in popliteal, femoral, iliac and inferior vena cava confirmed by ultrasound. In this group, 108 patients with inferior vena cava filter implantation included 11 patients anticoagulant contraindications, 11 patients with pulmonary embolism, 5 patients with floating thrombosis in iliac vein, femoral vein or inferior vena cava, 35 patients with acute deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity received catheter-directed thrombolysis or percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy, 46 patients with abdominal, pelvic or lower extremity surgery for acute deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity and high risk factors of pulmonary embolism. One hundred and three patients received retrievable inferior vena cava filters and 5 patients received temporary inferior vena cava filters. Ninety-two patients were followed up successfully in this group. In 74 patients, the filter trap was recovered using a catcher, and the inferior vena cava filter of 12 patients were successfully removed by Loop technology and Loop with biopsy forceps.The success rate of the filter removal was 93.5%. After removal of the filter, angiography of inferior vena cava showed smooth wall, blood flow patency and no extravasation of contrast agent. The removal filters have normal shape, no fracture and no deformation. Conclusions Operators should strictly observe the indication of inferior vena cava filter placement, master a variety of filter removal methods to improve the success rate of filter removal and maximize the benefit of patients with inferior vena cava filter implantation.