ArticleBMC surgery2025
When to remove implantable vascular access ports? a retrospective analysis of 376 patients with breast cancer and implantable vascular access ports.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal timing of removal of implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) in cancer patients is unknown. This study aimed to explore the timing of PORT removal and the impact of PORT removal within 2 years in breast cancer patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included breast cancer patients who underwent PORT implantation at our Hospital between July 2012 and May 2022 and ultimately had their PORTs removed. QoL scores were assessed using the Karnofsky method. The primary endpoint was quality of life (QoL) (A: 80-100 points, basically normal self-care ability; B: 60-79 points, mild dependence on self-care ability; C: <60 points, moderate to severe dependence). The secondary endpoints included the proportion of unplanned PORT removal, secondary catheterization, medical costs, and complications.
resultsThis study included 376 female patients with a median age of 52 (range, 22-72) years. The median PORT indwelling time was 464 (range, 16-2717) days. No significant differences were observed in the QoL scores between patients with PORT indwelling time ≤ 2 vs. >2 years [A/B/C: 90.87%/7.94%/1.19% vs. 95.97%/4.03%/0, P = 0.185]. Patients with PORT indwelling time ≤ 2 years exhibited higher probabilities of unplanned port removal (16.76% vs. 3.99%, odds ratio = 2.42, P = 0.004), higher secondary catheterization (28.99% vs. 3.72%, odds ratio = 5.08, P = 0.004), and higher medical costs (24.57 ± 31.36 vs. 7.16 ± 1.19 CNY/day, P < 0.001) compared with patients with PORT indwelling time > 2 years. There were no significant differences in the frequency of complications between groups (P = 0.751). In the subgroup of patients with planned PORT removal, the ≤ 2-year group still showed significantly higher secondary catheterization rates (31.22% vs. 8.26%, P < 0.001) and daily costs (14.83 vs. 6.83 CNY/day, P < 0.001).
conclusionIn patients with breast cancer who do not require regular intravenous administration, it may be recommended to consider removing the infusion port after 2 years to reduce the risks of secondary catheterization and reduce medical costs, unless irreversible adverse events affect the correct use of the PORT. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.