ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
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.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-centered venous access is critical in breast cancer supportive care. While the tunnel-less axillary vein (AxV) approach for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation may improve patient experience, comparative evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) against the standard internal jugular vein (IJV) approach remains limited. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study compared ultrasound-guided IJV (n = 106) versus AxV (n = 102) TIVAP implantation in breast cancer patients (September 2020-February 2025). Primary outcomes included postoperative comfort (assessed at 1 day) and cosmetic outcome and satisfaction (assessed at 6 months). Complications were monitored for 6 months. Group comparisons utilized chi-square/Fisher's exact tests. To control for potential confounders, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed, adjusting for age, body mass index, and implantation side. Complications were monitored for 6 months. Results: The AxV approach significantly enhanced early postoperative comfort, with a higher rate of no discomfort (Grade 0: 72.5% vs. 59.4%, p = 0.032). At 6 months, the AxV approach demonstrated superior, favorable cosmetic outcomes (Grades 1-2: 93.1% vs. 67.9%, p < 0.001) and higher overall satisfaction (94.1% vs. 85.8%, p = 0.039). Multivariable analysis confirmed the AxV approach as an independent predictor for ideal comfort [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 4.48, p = 0.0002], favorable cosmetic outcome (aOR = 6.22, p < 0.001), and overall satisfaction (aOR = 3.07, p = 0.033). More AxV patients would choose the port again (83.3% vs. 72.6%, p = 0.045). The overall complication rates were comparable between groups [4.8%, 0.269/1,000 central line-days (CD) vs. 4.9%, 0.279/1,000 CD; p = 0.957]. Conclusion: For breast cancer patients, the ultrasound-guided AxV approach for TIVAP provides superior early postoperative comfort, long-term cosmetic results, and patient satisfaction without increasing early complication risks, representing a significant patient-centered advancement in venous access.
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.