Multicenter evaluation of anatomical landmark versus technology-assisted techniques for chemotherapy venous access device implantation.

The global incidence of cancer has significantly increased, resulting in the expanded use of innovative systemic treatments that require implantable vascular access devices, thus increasing the frequency of device implantation. These implants are associated with low complication rates, good patient tolerance, and a relatively short learning curve for both surgeons and radiologists. However, various factors, including patient characteristics, anatomical variations, underlying pathologies, and the surgeon's preferred technique, continue to pose challenges to standardized implementation. This variability may influence procedural success and complication rates. Therefore, a systematic comparison between anatomical landmark-based and technology-assisted approaches is necessary to determine whether differences in outcomes are attributable to the implantation method itself and to support evidence-based clinical decision-making. Hence, the importance of evaluating the outcomes of two common approaches to device implantation: one based on anatomical landmarks, relying solely on surface anatomical references for vascular access, and the other assisted by technology, which incorporates real-time imaging modalities such as ultrasound guidance for venous cannulation and fluoroscopic imaging for catheter tip positioning and procedural verification. This retrospective, multicenter cohort study analyzed oncology patients indicated for intravenous chemotherapy, with data collected from four institutions in Bogotá between June 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. A total of 867 patients with diagnoses of hematolymphoid, gastric, colon, pancreatic, or breast cancer were included, excluding those with hypercoagulability syndrome, arrhythmias, or pacemaker use at the time of implantation. The data were systematically recorded using the REDCap