ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2016
A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Clinical Practice and Quality Control Guidelines for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in Cancer Patients (2024)].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Guideline
- Use of catheter with 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine polymer coating is associated with long-term availability of central venous port.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Clinical outcomes of upper-arm port implantation under restrictive platelet transfusion in hematological diseases.International journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with central venous port implantation during breast cancer perioperative chemotherapy: a Japanese database study.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Research progress and narrative review of totally implantable venous access ports.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Complication-related Removal of Central Venous Ports: Comparison of Subclavian and Upper Arm Approaches.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2026Article
- Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Observational
- A novel incision technique of a totally implanted venous access port in the upper arm for patients with breast cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- Expert consensus on the clinical application of totally implantable venous access devices in the upper arm (2022 Edition).Journal of interventional medicine · 2023Article
- Infectious complications of radiologically placed upper arm ports: A single center analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Incidence of and risk factors for totally implantable vascular access device complications in patients with gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2018Article
- Spontaneous coiling of the distal tip of the chemotherapy port.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2018Article
- 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe have employed upper arm central venous ports (UACVPs) since 2006 for long-term intravenous chemotherapy (CTx) or fluid supplementation. We evaluated the long-term availability of CVPs implanted in the upper arm to determine whether UACVPs could be one of the treatment options besides chest CVPs in terms of CVP-related complications.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs at Kyoto University Hospital from 1 April, 2006 to 30 June, 2009. We assessed the indwelling duration of the UACVPs and the incidences of early and late UACVP-related complications.
resultsA total of 433 patients underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs during this time period. The cumulative follow-up period was 251,538 catheter days, and the median duration of UACVP indwelling was 439.0 days (1-2, 24). There was no UACVP-related mortality throughout the study period. A total of 83 UACVP-related complications occurred (19.2 %), including 43 cases of infection (9.9 %, 0.17/1000 catheter days), ten cases of catheter-related thrombosis (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), ten cases of occlusion (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), nine cases of catheter dislocation (2.0 %, 0.036/1000 catheter days), five cases of port leakage (1.2 %, 0.019/1000 catheter days), four cases of skin dehiscence (0.9 %, 0.015/1000 catheter days) and two cases of port chamber twist (0.5 %, 0.008/1000 catheter days). The removal-free one-year port availability was estimated at 87.8 %.
conclusionsUACVPs were of long-term utility, with complication rates comparable to those of chest CVPs previously reported.
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.