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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of venous access via the internal jugular vein (IJV) for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) placements. In Japan, TIVADs are generally placed in position by the percutaneous subclavian vein puncture approach (SVPA). However, this approach causes infrequent intraoperative or postoperative complications. Using the internal jugular vein puncture approach (IJVPA), TIVADs could be placed more easily and safely. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six patients who received TIVADs for chemotherapy of colorectal carcinomas were enrolled in this study. The choice of approach (IJVPA or SVPA) was adopted at the discretion of each doctor in charge of the patient. The operation time, success rate and complications of the two approaches were compared and evaluated. Results: TIVAD placement was successful in all patients. Thirty patients received the device via IJV puncture, but 1 patient required conversion to SVPA. Twenty-six patients underwent SVPA for device placement, but 3 of these patients required conversion to IJVPA. Mean operation time was 34.3 min in IJVPA and 35.2 min in SVPA. The success rate was 96.6% in IJVPA and 88.5% in SVPA. No severe perioperative complications were observed. However, long-term complications were observed in five cases, 3 by IJVPA and 2 by SVPA, but no significant difference in the rate of complications was observed between these two approaches. A catheter-related thrombosis was found by CT scan in 3 patients, two of whom underwent IJVPA (6.7%) and one case underwent SVPA (3.8%). Two patients received simultaneous administration of bevacizumab. Catheter infections occurred in 1 patient who underwent IJVPA (3.3%) and 1 patient who underwent SVPA (3.8%). Conclusions: The IJVPA is a safe and feasible method for TIVAD placement. </p

journal of cancer therapy

Safety and Feasibility of the Venous Access via Internal Jugular Vein Puncture Approach for Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Placements Compared with Subclavian Vein Puncture