Gynecologic oncology · 2009
Outcomes associated with different intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery systems in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a single institution's experience.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ivy Joseph J, Geller Melissa, Pierson Serena M, Jonson Amy L, Argenta Peter A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy the optimal delivery strategy and regimen remain undetermined. Catheter-related complications have been reported in 3-34% of cases across a number of platforms and port styles, but few data compare different catheters directly. We sought to evaluate the complication rate of two separate intraperitoneal chemotherapy port delivery systems used within a single practice.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles.
RESULTS: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64%) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36%) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83%) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17%) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent port placement in our practice (two surgical centers) from January, 2006 through October, 2008. Data extracted included: demographics, medical co-morbidities, port type, timing of placement, intraoperative procedures, reasons for discontinuation of IP chemotherapy, and number of completed cycles.
RESULTS: We identified 85 patients who had intraperitoneal ports placed. Four patients were excluded from this analysis: 2 declined chemotherapy and 2 were treated at other institutions and follow-up data was insufficient. Fifty-two (64%) of the 81 patients analyzed had a fenestrated port placed, and 29 (36%) had single lumen ports. In 67 cases (83%) the port was placed at the time of initial cytoreductive surgery. In 14 patients (17%) it was placed as a secondary event. The groups were well matched for age, stage, BMI, and medical co-morbidities though the group with single lumen catheters had more antecedent surgeries. We observed no significant difference between patients with single lumen or fenestrated ports with regard to: number of intraperitoneal treatments, catheter-related complications, hematologic outcomes, and rates of discontinuation.
CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of catheter-related complications is observed with both systems. The majority of discontinuations were due to hematologic complications and did not appear to be intrinsic to catheter choice.