Observational studyLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Prospective, monocentric observational study on the clinical use and patient satisfaction of an implantable venous access Port.
Observational study in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Transverse versus longitudinal skin incisions for totally implantable venous access port implantation: a randomized controlled trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLong-term totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) are essential for administering chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction and postoperative complications, compared to existing literature, emphasizing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) as a critical factor in treatment decisions.
methodsA prospective, monocentric observational study included 149 patients requiring TIVAP between April 13 and August 17, 2022. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a questionnaire covering four domains: overall satisfaction, willingness to choose the port again, cosmetic result, and pain experience. A meta-analysis of seven studies (1,035 patients) was performed to establish baseline data. The study assumed a non-inferiority margin of 12 points on a 0-100 scale (lower scores indicating better outcomes). Follow-ups were carried out at four weeks and six months.
resultsOf the 149 patients (mean age 58.8 years, 96% with oncological diseases), 117 (78.5%) TIVAPs were implanted via the cut-down technique, primarily using the cephalic vein (84.6%). Out of 1,240 documented catheter accesses, 91.4% were complication-free. Satisfaction scores demonstrated non-inferiority across all domains compared to literature: overall satisfaction (18.5 vs. 35.6; p < 0.001), willingness to choose the port again (15.8 vs. 29.4; p < 0.001), cosmetic result (38.0 vs. 39.9; p = 0.003), and pain experience (17.1 vs. 31.5; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe study demonstrated adequate patient satisfaction and non-inferiority of the investigated TIVAP system compared to other systems, though no superiority was found in cosmetic outcomes.
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.