Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis

@article{Li2019ArmPV,
  title={Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  author={Guanhua Li and Yiling Zhang and Hongmin Ma and Junmeng Zheng},
  journal={Cancer Management and Research},
  year={2019},
  volume={11},
  pages={6099 - 6112}
}
Background Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques. Methods We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related… Expand
Impact of chest subcutaneous fat on the occurrence of central venous port-related infectious complications in cancer patients
TLDR
Low SFA in the midclavicular line was an independent risk factor for infectious complications in the chemotherapy setting and can be useful for optimizing patients’ nutritional status and when considering other types of vascular access to support administration of intravenous chemotherapy. Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 53 REFERENCES
A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer.
  • P. Marcy, E. Chamorey, +10 authors J. Gallard
  • Medicine
  • European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology
  • 2008
TLDR
The higher technical success rate with 0% heavy sedation, the lower venous thrombosis rate in the API group, and the 5.3% (A-B) patient transfer rate argue in favour of arm port placement in HNP, demonstrating that both implantation techniques are safe and effective. Expand
Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients
TLDR
The significant advantages of R over S include higher success rate, higher cosmetic results despite a 15% relative overcost for R placement, nevertheless R placement is mandatory in anxious patients who fear surgery, in patients at risk of respiratory insufficiency. Expand
Upper Arm Central Venous Port Implantation: A 6-Year Single Institutional Retrospective Analysis and Pictorial Essay of Procedures for Insertion
TLDR
Upper arm CV port implantation may benefit clinicians and patients with respect to safety and comfort and there is no risk of “pinch-off syndrome,” possibly less patient fear of manipulation, no scars on the neck and chest, easier accessibility, and compatibility with the “peripherally inserted central catheter” technique. Expand
Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5-year single-institution retrospective study.
TLDR
Compared to chest ports, peripheral ports are associated with a significantly higher incidence of DVT, and the probability of thrombosis occurring over a period of 180 days was higher with peripheral ports irrespective of Coumadin use. Expand
Complications of Central Venous Totally Implantable Access Port Internal Jugular Versus Subclavian Access
TLDR
The jugular access should be chosen in patients who need long term catheterization because of high incidence of mechanical complication, such as pinch-off syndrome, according to this analysis of TIAP related complications. Expand
Subclavian Vein Versus Arm Vein for Totally Implantable Central Venous Port for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis
TLDR
Both subclavian and arm CVPs are feasible in patients with HNC; however, the arm port is not recommended as the first choice for patients with head and neck cancer and a prospective analysis is warranted. Expand
Long-term Outcome of Peripherally Implanted Venous Access Ports in the Forearm in Female Cancer Patients
TLDR
Peripherally implanted venous access ports in the forearm are a safe alternative to chest or upper-arm ports in female oncology patients, and special attention should be paid to signs of skin dehiscence and nonthrombotic dysfunction, especially when used for long-term treatment. Expand
Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan
TLDR
Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation. Expand
Percutaneous versus Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement
TLDR
Both the percutaneous and cut-down technique are safe and effective for TIVAD implantation and surgeons should familiarize themselves with both techniques. Expand
Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: A randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life.
TLDR
Ports were safe and effective but had no detectable impact on functional quality of life, despite less access-related anxiety, pain, and discomfort, and economic considerations suggest that port-use policies should be based upon defined criteria of need. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...