Wound complications after chemo-port placement in children: Does closure technique matter?

PURPOSE: Wound dehiscence after chemo-port placement is a rare but potentially significant complication. We hypothesize that by using a simple running skin closure technique during chemo-port placement the rate of wound dehiscence and overall wound complications can be significantly decreased.

METHODS

IRB approval was obtained and patients <18years that received a tunneled central line with port from June 2012 to April 2016 were analyzed. Data collected on patients included patient demographics, skin closure type, and wound complications within 30days. Chi-square was performed to examine the univariate association with skin closure technique and wound dehiscence. Logistic regression was performed to examine the multivariable association between skin closure type and wound dehiscence and to compute odds ratios.

RESULTS

There were 259 ports placed in this cohort: 125 used simple running skin closure technique, and 134 used the subcuticular skin closure. Patients were found to not have any difference in rate of dehiscence or overall wound complications based on gender, age, location of port, or use of steroids or chemotherapy within 1week of port placement. When compared, only 1 case (0.80%) in the simple running group vs 10 cases (7.46%) in the subcuticular group experienced a wound dehiscence [unadjusted OR=14.07 (1.69, 116.99) p=0.0144]. When comparing overall wound complications the simple running group had 3 (2.4%) versus 12 (8.96%) in the subcuticular group [unadjusted OR=4.78 (1.27, 17.94) p=0.0203]. When adjusting for port-number both dehiscence and overall wound complications remained statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the simple running skin closure for chemo-port placement in children has superior outcomes in regards to prevention of dehiscence and overall wound related complications when compared to the subcuticular technique.