English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether patency times, including complications of subcutaneous venous chest port insertion using ultrasonography (US) guidance, differ between jugular and subclavian venous access. Between December 2008 and July 2010, subcutaneous venous chest ports were placed in 347 patients by an experienced team. All single-lumen port catheters were placed into jugular and subclavian veins under US and fluoroscopy guidance. Patency times and complication rates of ports via these routes were compared and the variables were age, gender, access, site of malignancy and coagulation parameters. The success of the jugular and subclavian groups was compared by univariate Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the multivariable Cox regression test. A total of 15 patients underwent port removal due to complications. As a rate per 100 catheter days, ports were explanted in 7 (0.0092) due to thrombosis, 4 (0.0053) for catheter malposition, one each (0.0013) of port reservoir flip-over, bleeding, port pocket infection, skin necrosis and incision dehiscence, for a total of 15 patients (0.0197). Patency times were not different in the jugular and subclavian veins. Factors were not significant, with the exception of platelet count. There was no significant difference in patency times, including complications, between jugular vein access and subclavian vein access using US. This should be considered when selecting the access method.

Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center