ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo compare operative results between venous puncture (P) with real-time ultrasonography vs. cut-down (CD) with preoperative ultrasonography for totally implantable central vein access device (TICVAD) implantation performed by residents (R) vs. senior surgeons (S). PATIENTS AND
methodsAdult oncologic patients (n=268) undergoing TICVAD implantations were retrospectively compared between 172 Ps and 96 CDs. Then, we compared Ps performed by R (P-R, n=131) and S (P-S, n=41) and CDs performed by R (CD-R, n=59) and S (CD-S, n=37).
resultsMedian operation times were 40 min in the P group and 53.5 min in the CD group, and times were significantly shorter for P-S and CD-S. Completion rates were comparable for each method and each surgeon. Intraoperative complication rates were 3.8% (P-R), 2.4% (P-S), and 0% (CD-R and CD-S).
conclusionP with real-time ultrasonography did not avoid complications compared to CD with preoperative ultrasonography. The latter performed safely even by residents.
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.