ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2022
Risk factors for unsuccessful removal of central venous access ports implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 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
- Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Minimal invasive aortic arch repair with suture-mediated closure system.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2023Article
- A case of percutaneous retrieval of a catheter without a free end that was fractured during a totally implantable venous access port removal.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Application of cumulative summation (CUSUM) method and mathematical model to evaluate the learning effect in central venous catheter port implantation.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the risk factors for unsuccessful removal of a central venous access port (CV port) implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 97 adult oncologic patients (51 males, 46 females; age range, 30-88 years; mean age, 63.7 years) in whom removal of a CV port implanted in the forearm was attempted at our hospital between January 2015 and May 2021. Gender, age at removal, body mass index, and diagnosis were examined as patient characteristics; and indwelling period, indwelling side, and indication for removal were examined as factors associated with removal of a CV port. These variables were compared between successful and unsuccessful cases using univariate analysis. Then, multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for unsuccessful removal of a CV port using variables with a significant difference in the univariate analysis. A receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve was drawn for significant risk factors in the multivariate analysis and the Youden index was used to determine the optimum cut-off value for predicting unsuccessful removal of a CV port.
resultsRemoval of CV ports was successful in 79 cases (81.4%), but unsuccessful in 18 cases (18.6%) due to fixation of the catheter to the vessel wall. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the indwelling period (odds ratio 1.048; 95% confidence interval 1.026-1.070; P < 0.0001) was a significant independent risk factor for unsuccessful removal of a CV port. ROC analysis showed that the cut-off value for successful removal was 41 months, and 54% of cases with an indwelling period > 60 months had unsuccessful removal.
conclusionThe indwelling period is an independent risk factor for unsuccessful removal of a CV port implanted in the forearm of adult oncologic patients, with a cut-off of 41 months.
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.