Observational studyScientific reports2025
Experience with the implementation of central venous catheters by medical oncologists in a non-surgical setting.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Removal of a broken venous port from the pulmonary artery: a case series.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Totally implantable central venous catheters (CVCs) are widely used in the management of patients with malignant diseases. Conventionally, port implantations were carried out by general surgeons and vascular radiologists. In recent years, the medical staff of the Medical Oncology department at the Central University Hospital of Asturias (HUCA) has developed a simplified methodology for the routine implantation of these devices. The aim of this study was to review our experience of CVCs and analyze the outcomes regarding catheter duration, complications, and cost comparison with respect to conventional port implantation by vascular radiologists. An observational epidemiological study was conducted, analyzing the methodology performed in a non-surgical, outpatient setting utilizing the Seldinger technique, without fluoroscopic control. A thorax X-ray was performed after each procedure and no prophylactic antibiotics were required. From January 2015 to March 2019, five hundred port systems were implanted, with a median age of 62 years (range 18-81), male 286/female 214. Most patients had a digestive tumor (79.4%). The right jugular vein was the most accessed in 345 patients (69%), followed by right subclavian in 144 (29%). Complications were observed in 49 patients (9.8%), immediate in 16 (3.2%), and late in 33 (6.6%). Thirty-nine devices were removed (7.8%). The cost incurred for port implantations by medical oncologists was lower (994.38 € cheaper for each device) compared to those implanted by vascular radiologists. Our experience suggests that implantation of port devices by medical oncologist in a non-surgical environment is safe and cost saving regarding conventional procedures.
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.