Observational studyMedicine2019
Cephalic vein approach for the implantable central venous access: A retrospective review of the single institution's experiences; Cohort Study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Single-Institution Audit of Chemo-PORT Placements During Breast Surgery with Literature Review for Management of Common Complications.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Risk of Cephalic Vein Injury During the Creation of an Anterior Portal in Shoulder Arthroscopy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Cephalic Vein Cut Down for Total Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Retrospective Review of a Single Institution Series.EJVES vascular forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Long-term venous access is usually required in patients receiving chemotherapy. We hypothesized that, out of the various central line approach techniques, the cephalic vein cut-down technique can be a safe and simple alternative in terms of surgical safety, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and functional outcomes.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 569 patients who underwent implantable central venous access between January 2012 and December 2014 at our hospital.We classified our cohort according to access routes, as follows: 230 patients underwent subclavian vein access, 134 patients underwent internal jugular vein access, 25 patients underwent external jugular vein access, and 119 patients underwent cephalic vein access. The cephalic vein group had a significantly longer operation time than the subclavian group (P < .01); however, there was no difference in operation time between the internal jugular vein and cephalic vein groups (P = .59). The procedure-related complications and functional outcomes of the implanted venous port during chemotherapy were comparable between the cephalic group and other groups. Additionally, body mass index, operation time, and age did not correlate with catheter dysfunction in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (P = .53; P = .66; P = .19, respectively).We suggest that a cut-down central venous catheter insertion through the cephalic vein can be performed easily and safely with no differences in surgical and clinical outcomes compared to those of conventional percutaneous approaches. Moreover, the cephalic vein approach requires no specialized equipment, including percutaneous vascular kits, tunneling instruments, and intraoperative ultrasonography. Therefore, this technique might incur less medical expenses than conventional approaches and would be helpful for both patients and 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.