ArticlePrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review2025
Analysis of the reasons for removal of vascular ports in patients treated in chemotherapy and gynecological oncology departments - preliminary investigations.
Article in Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of vascular ports in oncology patients for the administration of irritating and chemotherapeutic drugs clearly solves the problem of peripheral vascular damage caused by oncological drugs, and at the same time provides a comfortable way of treating patients in the long term. Although there are risks associated with the long-term maintenance of implanted ports, any risk factors for infection associated with an implantable intravenous port should be minimized. Material and methods: The main purpose of the study was to investigate the reasons for removal of vascular ports in patients undergoing systemic treatment at the wards of the University Clinical Hospital. Patients who had a vascular port implanted for the duration of their therapy were monitored for complications that had become the reason for removing the implants within 24 months of implantation. Results: The main reason for removing a vascular port was the conclusion of therapy (82.7%). The second reason for removing the ports was infection (13.5%), which, despite the use of rigorous procedures, could not be avoided due to the significant reduction in immunity in patients treated with oncological drugs. Conclusions: Despite their limitations in oncological treatment, ports have no alternatives, and thus further technological progress is essential. Education of staff working with patients with implants allows an increase in the benefits of therapy in the long run and significantly improves the quality of life of oncological patients. The education of patients and their families, as well as frequent re-training of staff, provides greater opportunities to minimize the side effects of therapy and reduce the number of adverse reactions related to infections.
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.