穿刺、切开与住院医师-高年资医师行中心静脉置管术的比较

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture . Cut-down and Residents . Senior Surgeons.

机构信息

Department of Surgical Oncology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan;

Department of Surgical Oncology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.

出版信息

In Vivo. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):1197-1204. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12369.

DOI:10.21873/invivo.12369

PMID:33622921

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8045093/

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: To compare operative results between venous puncture (P) with real-time ultrasonography vs. cut-down (CD) with preoperative ultrasonography for totally implantable central vein access device (TICVAD) implantation performed by residents (R) vs. senior surgeons (S).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult oncologic patients (n=268) undergoing TICVAD implantations were retrospectively compared between 172 Ps and 96 CDs. Then, we compared Ps performed by R (P-R, n=131) and S (P-S, n=41) and CDs performed by R (CD-R, n=59) and S (CD-S, n=37).

RESULTS

Median operation times were 40 min in the P group and 53.5 min in the CD group, and times were significantly shorter for P-S and CD-S. Completion rates were comparable for each method and each surgeon. Intraoperative complication rates were 3.8% (P-R), 2.4% (P-S), and 0% (CD-R and CD-S).

CONCLUSION

P with real-time ultrasonography did not avoid complications compared to CD with preoperative ultrasonography. The latter performed safely even by residents.

摘要

背景/目的：比较由住院医师（R）和高年资外科医生（S）实施的经实时超声引导静脉穿刺（P）与术前超声引导切开（CD）用于完全植入式中心静脉通路装置（TICVAD）植入的手术结果。

患者和方法

回顾性比较了 268 例接受 TICVAD 植入术的成年肿瘤患者，其中 172 例采用 P 法，96 例采用 CD 法。然后，我们比较了由 R（P-R，n=131）和 S（P-S，n=41）实施的 P 法和由 R（CD-R，n=59）和 S（CD-S，n=37）实施的 CD 法。

结果

P 组的中位手术时间为 40 分钟，CD 组为 53.5 分钟，P-S 和 CD-S 的时间明显更短。每种方法和每位外科医生的完成率相当。术中并发症发生率为 3.8%（P-R）、2.4%（P-S）和 0%（CD-R 和 CD-S）。

结论

与 CD 相比，实时超声引导的 P 并不能避免并发症。即使由住院医师实施，后者也是安全的。

相似文献

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture . Cut-down and Residents . Senior Surgeons.

In Vivo. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):1197-1204. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12369.

Evaluation of totally implantable central venous access devices with the cephalic vein cut-down approach: Usefulness of preoperative ultrasonography.

J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;113(1):114-9. doi: 10.1002/jso.24100. Epub 2015 Dec 8.

An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases.

Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006 Feb;32(1):90-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.09.004. Epub 2005 Nov 10.

Cephalic Vein Cut-down for Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices With Preoperative Ultrasonography by Surgical Residents.

In Vivo. 2019 Nov-Dec;33(6):2079-2085. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11707.

The Safety Level of Total Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents.

J Surg Educ. 2019 Jan-Feb;76(1):182-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.07.005. Epub 2018 Aug 14.

Analysis of the Outcomes in Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents via the Internal Jugular Vein and Subclavian Vein.

J Surg Educ. 2017 May-Jun;74(3):443-449. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.005. Epub 2016 Dec 5.

Totally Implantable Central Venous Port Catheters: Radiation Exposure as a Function of Puncture Site and Operator Experience.

In Vivo. 2018 Jan-Feb;32(1):179-184. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11222.

Percutaneous Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement.

Am Surg. 2017 Dec 1;83(12):1336-1342.

Use of a hydrophilic coating wire reduces significantly the rate of central vein punctures and the incidence of pneumothorax in totally implantable access port (TIAP) surgery.

BMC Surg. 2017 Dec 7;17(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0329-4.

Ultrasound-guided vein puncture versus surgical cut-down technique in totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADS): a prospective comparative study on safety, efficacy andcomplications.

Int Surg. 2014 Jul-Aug;99(4):475-8. doi: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-14-00008.1.

引用本文的文献

Pacemaker leads as a potential source of problems in patients who might need a central venous access port.

Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2023 Dec 15;13(6):1068-1079. doi: 10.21037/cdt-23-104. Epub 2023 Oct 27.

本文引用的文献

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900).

Ann Surg. 2020 Dec;272(6):950-960. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003705.

Cephalic Vein Cut-down for Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices With Preoperative Ultrasonography by Surgical Residents.

In Vivo. 2019 Nov-Dec;33(6):2079-2085. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11707.

Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review.

Insights Imaging. 2019 Aug 28;10(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0770-2.

The Safety Level of Total Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents.

J Surg Educ. 2019 Jan-Feb;76(1):182-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.07.005. Epub 2018 Aug 14.

Analysis of the Outcomes in Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents via the Internal Jugular Vein and Subclavian Vein.

J Surg Educ. 2017 May-Jun;74(3):443-449. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.005. Epub 2016 Dec 5.

Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;43(4):689-695. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.020. Epub 2016 Nov 5.

Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan.

Int J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec;21(6):1172-1182. doi: 10.1007/s10147-016-1003-z. Epub 2016 Jun 21.

Evaluation of totally implantable central venous access devices with the cephalic vein cut-down approach: Usefulness of preoperative ultrasonography.

J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jan;113(1):114-9. doi: 10.1002/jso.24100. Epub 2015 Dec 8.

Closed cannulation of subclavian vein vs open cut-down of cephalic vein for totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: protocol for a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications.

Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 22;4:53. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0043-1.

Ultrasound-guided vein puncture versus surgical cut-down technique in totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADS): a prospective comparative study on safety, efficacy andcomplications.

Int Surg. 2014 Jul-Aug;99(4):475-8. doi: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-14-00008.1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述，助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型，支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验

穿刺、切开与住院医师-高年资医师行中心静脉置管术的比较

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture . Cut-down and Residents . Senior Surgeons.

机构信息

Department of Surgical Oncology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan;

Department of Surgical Oncology, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.

出版信息

In Vivo. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):1197-1204. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12369.

DOI:10.21873/invivo.12369

PMID:33622921

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8045093/

Abstract

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

P with real-time ultrasonography did not avoid complications compared to CD with preoperative ultrasonography. The latter performed safely even by residents.

摘要

患者和方法

结果

结论

与 CD 相比，实时超声引导的 P 并不能避免并发症。即使由住院医师实施，后者也是安全的。

穿刺、切开与住院医师-高年资医师行中心静脉置管术的比较

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture . Cut-down and Residents . Senior Surgeons.

机构信息

出版信息

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

患者和方法

结果

结论

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

用中文搜PubMed

文档翻译

Suppr 超能文献

穿刺、切开与住院医师-高年资医师行中心静脉置管术的比较

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture . Cut-down and Residents . Senior Surgeons.

机构信息

出版信息

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

患者和方法

结果

结论