Comparison of Implantable Central Venous Ports: Subclavian Versus Juguler Access

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridkaramustafaoglu, yekta altemur/0000-0002-5491-1219
dc.authoridYORUK, YENER/0000-0001-6309-3054
dc.authorwosidkaramustafaoglu, yekta altemur/S-9512-2019
dc.authorwosidYoruk, Yener/W-4285-2017
dc.contributor.authorKaramustafaoglu, Yekta Altemur
dc.contributor.authorYagci, Sevinc
dc.contributor.authorKocal, Sedat
dc.contributor.authorYoruk, Yener
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:56:02Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:56:02Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim: Today, implantable central venous ports (ICVP) are increasingly used in oncology patients and provide easy vascular access for delivery of chemotherapy, other intravenous treatments, as fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition solutions. In this study, we present our experience and comparison of efficacy and incidence of complications between subclavian versus jugular access in oncology patients and provide easy vascular access for delivery of chemotherapy. Material and Method: Three hundred ten implantable central venous ports (ICVP) were implanted via the subclavian vein (SV) in 145 patients (66 men, 79 women) with average age of 56.55 (18-86) and were implanted via the external jugular vein (EJV) in 165 patients (75 men, 90 women) with average age of 56.81 (19-81) between November 1.2006 and June 3, 2009. Results: There was no mortality caused by ICVP. As early complications, pneumothorax developed immediately after the procedure in 7 patients and arterial puncture in 34 patients. As late complications, infections developed in 10 patients, breakage of the catheter in one patient, malposition of catheter in one patient, jugular vein thrombosis in one patient. There was significant higher rate total implantation time in SV group (41610 catheter days) comparing with EJV group (23861 catheter days) ( p=0.0001. Discussion: According to experience, there was no difference rates of complication of catheter between the two groups despite a longer stay in SV group (complication numbers 28 in SV group. 28 in EJV group). It should be noted that this study took place at a single centre experience with a limited number of cases included and more research needs to be done to determine new and better ways to long-term vascular access.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4328/JCAM.1118
dc.identifier.endpage498en_US
dc.identifier.issn1309-0720
dc.identifier.issn1309-2014
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84878346647en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage495en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid184047en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4328/JCAM.1118
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/184047
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/19648
dc.identifier.volume4en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000215548700017en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.publisherDerman Medical Publen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Clinical And Analytical Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectCentral Venous Accessen_US
dc.subjectImplantable Porten_US
dc.subjectExternal Jugular Veinen_US
dc.subjectSubclavian Veinen_US
dc.subjectCatheter Insertionen_US
dc.subjectComplicationsen_US
dc.subjectVeinen_US
dc.subjectPlacementen_US
dc.subjectOncologyen_US
dc.subjectDevicesen_US
dc.titleComparison of Implantable Central Venous Ports: Subclavian Versus Juguler Accessen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu