Journal of surgical oncology · 2009
Modification of approach for totally implantable venous access device decreases rate of complications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karanlik Hasan, Kurul Sidika
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the potential utilization of external jugular vein (EJV) cutdown approach for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) placement.
METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized, observational, uni-institutional study. All patients (n = 451) were first subjected to attempted subclavian vein (SV) percutaneous approach. If SV percutaneous approach was unsuccessful after multiple puncture in group A and maximum two puncture in group B, an ipsilateral EJV cutdown approach was attempted.
RESULTS: Four hundred four patients (89.6%) underwent TIVAD placement via SV percutaneous approach. Of those 47 patients in which SV percutaneous approach was not successful, 8 patients in group A and 39 patients in group B, TIVAD was placed via ipsilateral EJV cutdown approach. The average of operative time was 17.9 +/- 8.5 min in group A and 18 +/- 7.3 min in group B (P > 0.05). The early complications of group A were significantly higher than that of group B (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: TIVAD placement by the SV percutaneous approach is safe and fast, and its success rate is very high. By avoiding the immediate complications associated with the percutaneous approach, the EJV cutdown has to be considered a valid, safe, and suitable alternative when the SV percutaneous approach unsuccessful after two needle puncture.
METHODS: This is a prospective, non-randomized, observational, uni-institutional study. All patients (n = 451) were first subjected to attempted subclavian vein (SV) percutaneous approach. If SV percutaneous approach was unsuccessful after multiple puncture in group A and maximum two puncture in group B, an ipsilateral EJV cutdown approach was attempted.
RESULTS: Four hundred four patients (89.6%) underwent TIVAD placement via SV percutaneous approach. Of those 47 patients in which SV percutaneous approach was not successful, 8 patients in group A and 39 patients in group B, TIVAD was placed via ipsilateral EJV cutdown approach. The average of operative time was 17.9 +/- 8.5 min in group A and 18 +/- 7.3 min in group B (P > 0.05). The early complications of group A were significantly higher than that of group B (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: TIVAD placement by the SV percutaneous approach is safe and fast, and its success rate is very high. By avoiding the immediate complications associated with the percutaneous approach, the EJV cutdown has to be considered a valid, safe, and suitable alternative when the SV percutaneous approach unsuccessful after two needle puncture.