ArticleInternational surgery2015
Performance of venous port catheter insertion by a general surgeon: a prospective study.
Article in International surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking routine technical choices in minor surgery: a retrospective cohort study of implantable venous port catheter placement.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Complications and management strategies of totally implantable venous access port insertion through percutaneous subclavian vein.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2019Article
- Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy.Patient preference and adherence · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As part of the vascular access procedures, venous ports, commonly referred to as catheters, are placed under the skin to enable safe and easy vascular access for administration of repeated drug treatments. 122 patients who had received a venous port catheter insertion procedure in the general surgery department between January 1012 and January 2014 were involved in this study. Patients were divided into two groups: those who had undergone a fluoroscopy (group 1) and those who had not undergone a fluoroscopy (group 2). Complications that emerged during and after the port catheter insertion procedure and successful insertion rates were recorded in the database. Data of these patients were presented in a prospective manner. There were 92 to 30 patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. In group 1, the mean age was approximately 56.8, total catheter stay time was 20,631 days, and mean time of port use was 224.2 days. In group 2, the mean age was approximately 61.2, total catheter stay time was 13,575 days, and mean time of port use was 452.5 days. Successful insertion rate was 100% and 90% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.05). The proper insertion of the port catheter accompanied by monitoring methods can decrease procedure-related complications. Statistical comparisons between the two groups in terms of malposition and successful insertion rates also support this view (P < 0.05). The findings support the view that in cancer patients, a venous port catheter insertion accompanied by a fluoroscopy can be safely performed by general surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.