Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31513685›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Effectiveness of different central venous catheter fixation suture techniques: An in vitro crossover study.

Manuel Florian Struck, Lars Friedrich, Stefan Schleifenbaum, Holger Kirsten, Wolfram Schummer, Bernd E Winkler

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement for Central Venous Catheterization and Management 2020.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Manuel Florian StruckDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0070-3406
Lars FriedrichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefan SchleifenbaumZESBO-Zentrum zur Erforschung der Stütz- und Bewegungsorgane, Leipzig, Germany.
Holger KirstenInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics, and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-7950
Wolfram SchummerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany.
Bernd E WinklerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DEDeutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum · DEJena University Hospital · DELeipzig University · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProper fixation of central venous catheters (CVCs) is an integral part of safety to avoid dislodgement and malfunction. However, the effectiveness of different CVC securement sutures is unknown.

methodsAnalysis of maximum dislodgement forces for CVCs from three different manufacturers using four different suture techniques in an in vitro tensile loading experiment: 1. "clamp only", 2. "clamp and compression suture", 3. "finger trap" and 4. "complete", i.e., "clamp + compression suture + finger trap". Twenty-five tests were performed for each of the three CVC models and four securement suture techniques (n = 300 test runs).

resultsThe primary cause of catheter dislodgement was sliding through the clamp in techniques 1 and 2. In contrast, rupture of the suture was the predominant cause for dislodgement in techniques 2 and 3. Median (IQR 25-75%) dislodgement forces were 26.0 (16.6) N in technique 1, 26.5 (18.8) N in technique 2, 76.7 (18.7) N in technique 3, and 84.8 (11.8) N in technique 4. Post-hoc analysis demonstrated significant differences (P < .001) between all pairwise combinations of techniques except technique 1 vs. 2 (P = .98).

conclusions"Finger trap" fixation at the segmentation site considerably increases forces required for dislodgement compared to clamp-based approaches.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatheterization, Central VenousCatheter-Related InfectionsCattleCentral Venous CathetersCross-Over StudiesHumansSuturesSuture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID31513685
PMCPMC6742355
OpenAlexW2972681404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.