Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2019
Ultrasound-based prediction of cephalic vein cutdown success prior to totally implantable venous access device placement.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Staszewicz Wojciech, Naiken Surrenaido P, Mennet André, Meyer Jeremy, Righini Marc, Morel Philippe, Toso Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical venous cutdown is a method for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) insertion. The main drawback of this technique is its higher failure rate when compared with the percutaneous approach, which is mostly related to anatomic variations of the cephalic vein. The aim of this study was to assess preoperative ultrasound imaging as a tool to predict cephalic vein cutdown failure for TIVAD insertion.
METHODS: Ultrasound and operative reports of a cohort of patients undergoing TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown were reviewed. Ultrasound venous (vein visibility, diameter, length, subcutaneous depth, vein path, and subclavian junction visibility) and patient variables were tested by logistic regression as predictors of TIVAD insertion failure.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty consecutive patients underwent cephalic vein cutdown for attempted TIVAD insertion. An inability to visualize the vein on the preoperative ultrasound examination (odds ratio, 4.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-12.30; P < .05) and depth of the vein (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.15; P = .042) were predictors of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ultrasound examination allows identifying patients at risk of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown. Preoperative ultrasound examination constitutes an efficient tool for choosing the most appropriate surgical approach and improving patient comfort.
METHODS: Ultrasound and operative reports of a cohort of patients undergoing TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown were reviewed. Ultrasound venous (vein visibility, diameter, length, subcutaneous depth, vein path, and subclavian junction visibility) and patient variables were tested by logistic regression as predictors of TIVAD insertion failure.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty consecutive patients underwent cephalic vein cutdown for attempted TIVAD insertion. An inability to visualize the vein on the preoperative ultrasound examination (odds ratio, 4.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-12.30; P < .05) and depth of the vein (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.15; P = .042) were predictors of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ultrasound examination allows identifying patients at risk of failure of TIVAD insertion by cephalic vein cutdown. Preoperative ultrasound examination constitutes an efficient tool for choosing the most appropriate surgical approach and improving patient comfort.