ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Port catheter thickness and its correlation with complications - exploring the millimeter threshold.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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.
- Rethinking routine technical choices in minor surgery: a retrospective cohort study of implantable venous port catheter placement.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPort catheters are indispensable in modern oncologic and medical care. Despite their benefits, complications such as skin erosion and related mechanical issues remain a significant concern. While numerous studies have explored prevention and management strategies, the influence of port reservoir thickness on these complications has not been systematically evaluated. This study investigates whether port thickness independently contributes to skin erosion risk, aiming to inform device selection and placement strategies. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 662 patients who underwent port catheter implantation at Istanbul Başakşehir Çam ve Sakura City Hospital between June 2022 and October 2024. Data on demographics, port brand, reservoir height, and revision status were analyzed. Appropriate nonparametric tests were used for group comparisons, and Spearman correlation and multivariate logistic regression were performed to assess the association between reservoir height and revision risk. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong 662 patients, 29 experienced skin erosion requiring revision, corresponding to a 4.4% overall revision rate. All revisions were due to skin erosion; no major or infectious complications occurred. Reservoir heights of the four port brands, 10.6 mm (n = 257), 11.6 mm (n = 58), 12.2 mm (n = 219), and 13.2 mm (n = 128), demonstrated a trend toward higher revision rates with increasing port thickness. Spearman correlation analysis demonstrated a weak but significant positive relationship between reservoir height and revision risk (r = 0.168, p < 0.001), indicating a size-dependent trend. In multivariate logistic regression, both port reservoir height and anti-VEGF therapy emerged as independent predictors of revision. Compared with 10.6-mm ports, 12.2-mm and 13.2-mm ports were associated with 4.47- and 10.39-fold higher revision risks (p = 0.023 and p < 0.001, respectively). Anti-VEGF therapy increased the revision risk by approximately 2.9-fold (p = 0.022).
conclusionsPort reservoir thickness is an independent predictor of skin erosion requiring revision. Thicker ports were linked to higher complication rates, particularly in patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy, underscoring the importance of device selection and design considerations in clinical practice. These findings suggest that thinner-profile ports should be preferred when feasible. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and establish evidence-based recommendations for port selection and placement.
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.