Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems
Do you wish to request the book?
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems
2009
Overview
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether low-profile totally implanted central venous port systems can reduce the late complication of skin perforation. Forty patients (age, 57 ± 13 years; 22 females, 18 males) were randomized for the implantation of a low-profile port system, and another 40 patients (age, 61 ± 14 years; 24 females, 16 males) received a regular port system as control group. Indications for port catheter implantation were malignant disease requiring chemotherapy. All port implantations were performed in the angiography suite using sonographically guided central venous puncture and fluoroscopic guidance of the catheter placement. Procedure time, number of complications (procedure-related immediate, early, and late complications), and number of explantations were assessed. Follow-up was performed for 6 months. All port implantations were successfully completed in both study groups. There were two incidents of skin perforation observed in the control group. One skin perforation occurred 13 weeks and the other 16 weeks after port implantation (incidence, 5%) in patients with regular-profile port systems. Two infections were observed, one port infection in each study group. Both infections were characterized as catheter-related infections (infection rate: 0.15 catheter-related infections per 1000 catheter days). In conclusion, low-profile port systems can be placed as safely as traditional chest ports and reduce the risk of developing skin perforations, which occurs when the port system is too tight within the port pocket.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage
/ BODY
/ Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects
/ Catheterization, Central Venous - methods
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Imaging
/ Male
/ MEDICINE
/ ORGANS
/ RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
/ SKIN
/ Surgical Wound Infection - etiology
/ TUBES
