Annals of vascular surgery · 2026
Subcutaneous Port Implantation Without Tunneling Site Anesthesia: A Feasible and Efficient Approach?
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bolgen Cagatay, Karluka Ismail
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The study examines whether omitting local anesthesia at the tunneling site during subcutaneous port catheter implantation is associated with differences in patient comfort and procedural outcomes through pain assessment during tunneling.
METHODS: The study included 243 patients who underwent subcutaneous port catheter placement at one interventional radiology unit. Patients received local anesthesia through three injection sites-vascular access, tunneling, and port pocket (n = 121)-or through two sites-vascular access and port pocket only (n = 122). The primary outcome was tunnel-site pain assessed by visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, complication rates, procedure duration, additional anesthetic requirements, and total anesthetic consumption. Between-group differences were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests with P < 0.05 as the significance threshold.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in mean pain levels during tunneling between the three-region and two-region groups (4.1 ± 2.3 vs. 3.8 ± 2.1; mean difference 0.3; 95% confidence interval: -0.35 to 0.95; P = 0.361). No statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction was observed between groups [median 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-5) versus median 4 (IQR: 4-5), P = 0.135]. Procedure duration showed no statistically significant difference (22.3 ± 4.5 vs. 21.7 ± 4.2 minutes, P = 0.517). Additional analgesia was required in 20.7% vs. 15.6% of patients (P = 0.302). Both groups demonstrated similarly low overall complication rates (7.4% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.791), with no significant differences in bleeding/hematoma (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.682), vasovagal reactions (1.7% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.621), or procedure interruptions (0.8% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.999).
CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed in pain scores, patient satisfaction, procedure duration, or complication rates between the two approaches. These findings suggest that omitting tunnel-site anesthesia may be feasible when a blunt-tip stylet is employed.
METHODS: The study included 243 patients who underwent subcutaneous port catheter placement at one interventional radiology unit. Patients received local anesthesia through three injection sites-vascular access, tunneling, and port pocket (n = 121)-or through two sites-vascular access and port pocket only (n = 122). The primary outcome was tunnel-site pain assessed by visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, complication rates, procedure duration, additional anesthetic requirements, and total anesthetic consumption. Between-group differences were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests with P < 0.05 as the significance threshold.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in mean pain levels during tunneling between the three-region and two-region groups (4.1 ± 2.3 vs. 3.8 ± 2.1; mean difference 0.3; 95% confidence interval: -0.35 to 0.95; P = 0.361). No statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction was observed between groups [median 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-5) versus median 4 (IQR: 4-5), P = 0.135]. Procedure duration showed no statistically significant difference (22.3 ± 4.5 vs. 21.7 ± 4.2 minutes, P = 0.517). Additional analgesia was required in 20.7% vs. 15.6% of patients (P = 0.302). Both groups demonstrated similarly low overall complication rates (7.4% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.791), with no significant differences in bleeding/hematoma (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.682), vasovagal reactions (1.7% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.621), or procedure interruptions (0.8% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.999).
CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed in pain scores, patient satisfaction, procedure duration, or complication rates between the two approaches. These findings suggest that omitting tunnel-site anesthesia may be feasible when a blunt-tip stylet is employed.