ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2018
Experience in totally implantable venous port catheter: Analysis of 3,000 patients in 12 years.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing internal jugular vein and subclavian vein for central venous insertion of implantable ports in cancer chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of RCTs.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Indian Expert Consensus on the Selection of Vascular Access Devices in Oncology Patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Predictors of Complications in Patients Undergoing Port Catheter Application: A Comparative Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Observational
- Experience with the implementation of central venous catheters by medical oncologists in a non-surgical setting.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Catheter misplacement from an implantable central venous access port into the internal thoracic vein: a case description.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Long-Term Results of a Standard Algorithm for Intravenous Port Implantation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Complications and pitfalls of central venous port catheters: experience with 782 patients with cancer.Irish journal of medical science · 2020Article
- Complications and management strategies of totally implantable venous access port insertion through percutaneous subclavian vein.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to present our experience with patients who were performed totally implantable venous port catheter.
methodsDemographics-clinical features, surgical results and complications of 3,000 patients (1,824 males, 1,176 females; mean age 61.04±11.5 years; range, 18 to 88 years) who were performed totally implantable venous port catheter between March 2005 and March 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Totally implantable venous port catheter indications, complications, catheter duration of stay, reasons for catheter removal and statistical analysis information were reported in detail by reviewing patient records.
resultsOf the cases, the Seldinger method was used in 98%, 1% (n=36) had the catheter inserted with superficial Doppler ultrasonography, while the veins were not found in 1% (n=29) and these patients were excluded from the study. Totally implantable venous port catheter was inserted via right internal jugular vein in 2,095 patients (70%), via right subclavian vein in 470 patients (16%), via left internal jugular vein in 290 patients (10%), and via left subclavian vein in 106 patients (3%). Mean duration of stay for totally implantable venous port catheter was 46.7 months (range, 1 to 78 months). Complications were detected in a total of 288 patients (9.6%), 153 (5.1%) being early and 135 (4.5%) being late. The most common oncologic indication was colorectal cancer. The rate of port removal was 298/3,000 (9.9%) and the main reasons were infection, thrombosis, pain, and end of treatment. Totally implantable venous port catheter was required to be inserted twice in 33 patients (1%) and thrice in 14 patients (0.5%). Totally implantable venous port catheter had malposition in eight patients and all were revised successfully with over the guide method.
conclusionTotally implantable venous port catheter may increase the quality of life in cancer patients. Despite possible complications, totally implantable venous port catheter is safe and comfortable for long-term intravenous treatment. Possible complications may be prevented or managed when totally implantable venous port catheter is performed by surgeons with adequate experience.
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.