• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

乳腺癌患者最佳血管通路端口的 Arm Port 和 Chest Port 比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, China.

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, China.

出版信息

Biomed Res Int. 2020 Feb 13;2020:9082924. doi: 10.1155/2020/9082924. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1155/2020/9082924
PMID:32104708
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7040392/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. . PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. . Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. . Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg's and Egger's tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies ( of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.

摘要

目的

本荟萃分析旨在比较乳腺癌患者使用手臂港和胸港的并发症发生率。我们检索了从数据库建立到 2019 年 10 月 11 日发表的文献,使用 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、中国知网(CNKI)和万方数据库进行系统评价和荟萃分析。我们的检索共生成了 2011 年至 2019 年发表的 22 篇文章,包括 6 项对照研究和 16 项单臂研究,涉及 4131 例和 5272 例对照。单臂研究与对照研究相结合也进行了汇总分析。最后,进行了亚组分析以比较这两种港口的感染和血栓形成率。纳入的文章是比较乳腺癌患者使用手臂港和胸港并发症发生率的研究。将删除任何综述或荟萃分析文章。提取人口统计学数据和以下分析信息。使用 DerSimonian 和 Laird 随机效应荟萃分析对对照研究进行分析,使用 Begg 和 Egger 检验评估发表偏倚。进行了元回归分析以解释异质性的来源。结果:对于对照研究,手臂港与胸港的总体并发症风险无差异(=0.083)。汇总对照和单臂研究的结果表明,手臂港会增加总体并发症风险,比值比(OR)为 2.64,亚组分析的结果表明,这两种港口的导管相关感染风险无差异。然而,根据仅针对对照研究的分析结果,手臂港与胸港相比可能与更高的血栓形成率相关(OR=2.64,亚组分析的结果表明,这两种港口的导管相关感染风险无差异。然而,根据仅针对对照研究的分析结果,手臂港与胸港相比可能与更高的血栓形成率相关(OR=2.64,亚组分析的结果表明,这两种港口的导管相关感染风险无差异。然而,根据仅针对对照研究的分析结果,手臂港与胸港相比可能与更高的血栓形成率相关(OR=2.64,亚组分析的结果表明,这两种港口的导管相关感染风险无差异。然而,根据仅针对对照研究的分析结果,手臂港与胸港相比可能与更高的血栓形成率相关(OR

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/466aa5b02a71/BMRI2020-9082924.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/24aa7de2dbe0/BMRI2020-9082924.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/b63044a6ac00/BMRI2020-9082924.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/99ce89c35183/BMRI2020-9082924.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/f2986fabcb3e/BMRI2020-9082924.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/466aa5b02a71/BMRI2020-9082924.005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/24aa7de2dbe0/BMRI2020-9082924.001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/b63044a6ac00/BMRI2020-9082924.002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/99ce89c35183/BMRI2020-9082924.003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/f2986fabcb3e/BMRI2020-9082924.004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b64/7040392/466aa5b02a71/BMRI2020-9082924.005.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.乳腺癌患者最佳血管通路端口的 Arm Port 和 Chest Port 比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Feb 13;2020:9082924. doi: 10.1155/2020/9082924. eCollection 2020.
2
Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta-analysis.外周臂港与中心胸港并发症的比较:一项荟萃分析。
J Adv Nurs. 2018 Nov;74(11):2484-2496. doi: 10.1111/jan.13766. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
3
A comparative analysis of infection and complication rates between single- and double-lumen ports.单腔与双腔端口的感染和并发症发生率比较分析。
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2024 Jun;45(6):698-702. doi: 10.1017/ice.2024.1. Epub 2024 Jan 26.
4
Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients.外周静脉输液港:109例患者的结果分析
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2000 May-Jun;23(3):187-93. doi: 10.1007/s002700010041.
5
Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis.手臂端口与胸部端口:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 Jul 3;11:6099-6112. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S205988. eCollection 2019.
6
Complications and Management of Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Ports in Cancer Patients at a University Hospital in Oman.阿曼一所大学医院癌症患者全植入式中心静脉通路港并发症及处理
Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2021 Feb;21(1):e103-e109. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2021.21.01.014. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
7
Right- versus Left-Sided Chest Ports in Oncologic Patients with a History of Right-Sided Port Removal: Are There Any Differences in the Complication Rates?右侧胸部端口与左侧胸部端口在有右侧端口移除史的肿瘤患者中的应用:并发症发生率是否存在差异?
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019 May;30(5):726-733. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2019.01.008. Epub 2019 Mar 27.
8
Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.癌症患者中与植入式静脉输液港和经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管相关的静脉血栓栓塞风险:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Thromb Res. 2022 May;213:34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2022.02.024. Epub 2022 Mar 7.
9
Totally implantable venous access ports: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein punctures.完全植入式静脉通路端口:一项比较锁骨下静脉和颈内静脉穿刺的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Phlebology. 2022 May;37(4):279-288. doi: 10.1177/02683555211069772. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
10
Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer.癌症患者中心静脉导管和完全植入式输液港的血栓形成和感染风险。
Thromb Res. 2010 Apr;125(4):318-21. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2009.06.008. Epub 2009 Jul 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Case Report: A successful multidisciplinary approach to doxorubicin extravasation from a PICC-port in a patient with breast cancer.病例报告:乳腺癌患者经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)-输液港发生多柔比星外渗的成功多学科处理方法。
Front Oncol. 2025 Jul 18;15:1534112. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1534112. eCollection 2025.
2
[Clinical Practice and Quality Control Guidelines for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in Cancer Patients (2024)].《癌症患者完全植入式静脉输液港临床实践与质量控制指南(2024年)》
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2025 Mar 20;56(2):400-410. doi: 10.12182/20250360602.
3
Predictive model for totally implanted venous access ports‑related long‑term complications in patients with lung cancer.

本文引用的文献

1
Utility of totally implantable venous access ports in patients with breast cancer.全植入式静脉输液港在乳腺癌患者中的应用价值
Breast J. 2020 Feb;26(2):333-334. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13595. Epub 2019 Sep 20.
2
Placement of Subcutaneous Central Venous Ports in Breast Cancer Patients: Does Side Matter?乳腺癌患者皮下中心静脉置管部位:侧别重要吗?
J Surg Res. 2019 Dec;244:296-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.028. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
3
Trapezius Port Placement in Patients with Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-up and Quality-of-Life Assessment.
肺癌患者完全植入式静脉输液港相关长期并发症的预测模型
Oncol Lett. 2024 May 15;28(1):326. doi: 10.3892/ol.2024.14459. eCollection 2024 Jul.
4
Basilic vein variation encountered during surgery for arm vein port: A case report.手臂静脉港手术中遇到的贵要静脉变异:一例报告。
World J Clin Cases. 2024 Apr 26;12(12):2086-2091. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i12.2086.
5
Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review.肿瘤学中中央静脉通路装置的术语、并发症和移除原因:范围综述。
BMC Cancer. 2024 Apr 19;24(1):498. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-12099-8.
6
Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.对于可能需要中心静脉通路端口的患者,起搏器导线可能是问题的一个潜在来源。
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2023 Dec 15;13(6):1068-1079. doi: 10.21037/cdt-23-104. Epub 2023 Oct 27.
7
A novel incision technique of a totally implanted venous access port in the upper arm for patients with breast cancer.一种在上臂为乳腺癌患者植入完全植入式静脉输液港的新型切口技术。
World J Surg Oncol. 2023 May 27;21(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03043-4.
8
Impact of totally implanted venous access port placement on body image in women with breast cancer.完全植入式静脉输液港置入对乳腺癌女性身体形象的影响。
J Vasc Access. 2024 Mar;25(2):673-676. doi: 10.1177/11297298221136330. Epub 2022 Nov 18.
9
2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.2022 年国际癌症患者静脉血栓栓塞症治疗和预防临床实践指南,包括 COVID-19 患者。
Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jul;23(7):e334-e347. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00160-7.
10
Safety of Insertion of Percutaneous Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices by Surgical Residents.外科住院医师行经皮完全植入式中心静脉置管的安全性。
In Vivo. 2022 Mar-Apr;36(2):985-993. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12791.
乳腺癌患者斜方肌下间隙置管:长期随访及生活质量评估
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019 Jan;30(1):69-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2018.08.011. Epub 2018 Dec 7.
4
Optimizing vascular access for patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer-a survey of oncology nurses and physicians.优化早期乳腺癌静脉全身治疗患者的血管通路——肿瘤护理人员和医生的一项调查
Curr Oncol. 2018 Aug;25(4):e298-e304. doi: 10.3747/co.25.3903. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
5
Cancer-associated thrombosis in patients with implanted ports: a prospective multicenter French cohort study (ONCOCIP).植入式端口患者相关的血栓形成:前瞻性多中心法国队列研究(ONCOCIP)。
Blood. 2018 Aug 16;132(7):707-716. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-03-837153. Epub 2018 Jul 6.
6
Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.早期乳腺癌化疗患者最佳血管通路策略:系统评价。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Oct;171(3):607-620. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4868-x. Epub 2018 Jul 4.
7
Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta-analysis.外周臂港与中心胸港并发症的比较:一项荟萃分析。
J Adv Nurs. 2018 Nov;74(11):2484-2496. doi: 10.1111/jan.13766. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
8
Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters.乳腺癌患者使用胸部与手臂中心静脉端口导管时的上肢深静脉血栓形成
Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2018 Apr 20;12:1178223418771909. doi: 10.1177/1178223418771909. eCollection 2018.
9
Advanced stage breast cancer is associated with catheter-tip thrombus formation following implantable central venous port placement.晚期乳腺癌与植入式中心静脉导管置入术后导管尖端血栓形成有关。
Phlebology. 2019 Mar;34(2):107-114. doi: 10.1177/0268355518774442. Epub 2018 May 17.
10
Effect of catheter diameter on left innominate vein in breast cancer patients after totally implantable venous access port placement.完全植入式静脉通路端口置入术后导管直径对乳腺癌患者左无名静脉的影响。
J Vasc Access. 2018 Nov;19(6):615-619. doi: 10.1177/1129729818765062. Epub 2018 Mar 21.