ArticleCancers2024
A Monocentric Analysis of Implantable Ports in Cancer Treatment: Five-Year Efficacy and Safety Evaluation.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Safety of totally implantable venous access devices and peripherally inserted central catheters in hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Indian Expert Consensus on the Selection of Vascular Access Devices in Oncology Patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-guided axillary vein versus internal jugular vein access for totally implantable venous access ports in breast cancer: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDaily clinical practice requires repeated and prolonged venous access for delivering chemotherapy, antibiotics, antivirals, parenteral nutrition, or blood transfusions. This study aimed to investigate the performance and the safety of totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVADs) over a 5-year follow-up period through a standardized well-trained surgical technique and patient management under local anesthesia.
methodsIn a retrospective, observational, and monocentric study, 70 patients receiving POLYSITE
resultsThe study demonstrated no perioperative or short-term complications related to the TIVADs. One (1.4%) complication related to device manipulation was identified as catheter flipping, which led to catheter adjustment 56 days post-placement. Moreover, one (1.4%) infection due to usage conditions was observed, leading to TIVAD removal 3 years and 4 months post-surgery. Catheter placement occurred in cephalic veins (71.4%), subclavian veins (20%), and internal jugular veins (8.6%). The procedural success rate was 100%. Overall, the implantable ports typically remained in place for an average of 22.4 months.
conclusionsThis study confirmed the TIVADs' performance and safety, underscored by low complication rates compared to published data, thereby emphasizing its potential and compelling significance for enhancing routine clinical practice using a standardized well-trained surgical technique and patient management.
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.