The journal of vascular access · 2025
Comparison between arm port and chest port: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wei Jianjian, Yin Wen, Yan Hongxia, Zhang Yue, Wang Chunmeng, He Fang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of arm ports (APs) and chest ports (CPs) in clinical practice.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and retrospective studies were searched in both English and Chinese databases, encompassing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Database, and SinoMed up to November 27, 2023. Data analysis was performed using Stata 15.0.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies, including two RCTs, three cohort studies, and twelve case-control studies, were finally included, involving a total of 4168 participants, with 2151 participants in the CP group and 2017 in the AP group. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between CP and AP in the incidence rates of infections [OR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.68, 1.41)], catheter occlusion[OR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.55, 1.64)], thrombosis [OR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.60, 1.21)], exudation [OR = 1.32, 95% CI (0.52, 3.36)], fibrin sheath [OR = 1.68, 95% CI (0.46, 6.19)], catheter malposition [OR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.30, 1.29)], fracture[OR = 1.84, 95% CI (0.49, 6.96)], pneumothorax [OR = 5.73, 95% CI (0.94, 35.11)], and malfunction [OR = 1.87, 95% CI (0.65, 5.42)].
CONCLUSION: This study reveals no significant differences in the incidence of infections, catheter occlusion, thrombosis, exudation, fibrin sheath, catheter malposition, fracture, pneumothorax, and malfunction between the two implanted venous access ports. Thus, it can be concluded that AP is as safe as CP.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and retrospective studies were searched in both English and Chinese databases, encompassing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Database, and SinoMed up to November 27, 2023. Data analysis was performed using Stata 15.0.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies, including two RCTs, three cohort studies, and twelve case-control studies, were finally included, involving a total of 4168 participants, with 2151 participants in the CP group and 2017 in the AP group. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between CP and AP in the incidence rates of infections [OR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.68, 1.41)], catheter occlusion[OR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.55, 1.64)], thrombosis [OR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.60, 1.21)], exudation [OR = 1.32, 95% CI (0.52, 3.36)], fibrin sheath [OR = 1.68, 95% CI (0.46, 6.19)], catheter malposition [OR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.30, 1.29)], fracture[OR = 1.84, 95% CI (0.49, 6.96)], pneumothorax [OR = 5.73, 95% CI (0.94, 35.11)], and malfunction [OR = 1.87, 95% CI (0.65, 5.42)].
CONCLUSION: This study reveals no significant differences in the incidence of infections, catheter occlusion, thrombosis, exudation, fibrin sheath, catheter malposition, fracture, pneumothorax, and malfunction between the two implanted venous access ports. Thus, it can be concluded that AP is as safe as CP.