Literature DB >> 19340796

Central venous port catheters: evaluation of patients' satisfaction with implantation under local anesthesia.

M H Maurer1, A Beck, B Hamm, B Gebauer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Evaluation of pain perception and patient satisfaction after implantation of a central venous port catheter system under local anesthesia.
METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients (25 outpatients, 75 inpatients) who underwent successful implantation of a port catheter into the internal jugular vein from May through August 2007 were given an 8-item questionnaire. The extent of information about the implantation, the pain perception during implantation and the friendliness of the physician and nurse were evaluated. Furthermore, the patients were asked to assess their degree of anxiety and the pain they experienced during the intervention and to give an appraisal of whether local anesthesia was adequate. Each question was assessed on a 10-point scale (10 = very true to 1 = not at all true). In addition, the overall duration of the intervention (including patient preparation, implantation, patient aftercare, disinfection of the room) was documented.
RESULTS: Patients felt highly satisfied with the way they were informed (mean score of 9.65) and considered the treating physician (9.89) and nurse (9.9) extremely friendly. Local anesthesia was rated as nearly completely adequate (9.56) and the degree of pain experienced was low (9.05; 10 = no pain). The average anxiety score was 8.56 (10 = not afraid at all). Overall satisfaction with the treatment was very high (9.62; outpatients: 9.72) and patients would recommend port catheter implantation at our department to others (9.77). The mean overall duration of the intervention was 76 min (range 40-120 min).
CONCLUSION: Positive patient reactions indicate that radiologic port catheter implantation under local anesthesia is a minimally invasive intervention with high patient satisfaction that can be performed on an outpatient basis and is a valid alternative to surgical implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19340796     DOI: 10.1177/112972980901000105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Access        ISSN: 1129-7298            Impact factor:   2.283


  5 in total

1.  Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view.

Authors:  Jan Peter Goltz; Bernhard Petritsch; Johannes Kirchner; Dietbert Hahn; Ralph Kickuth
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Effective operating room (OR) utilization by performing low-complex surgical procedures during the 2020 corona pandemic.

Authors:  Thomas Vogel; Dina Schippers; Balqees Aldarweesh; Ilaria Pergolini; Martina Stollreiter; Klaus Wagner; Dirk Wilhelm; Helmut Friess; Michael Kranzfelder
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia: patients' satisfaction with oral lorazepam.

Authors:  De-Hua Chang; Sonja Hiss; Lena Herich; Ingrid Becker; Kamal Mammadov; Mareike Franke; Anastasios Mpotsaris; Robert Kleinert; Thorsten Persigehl; David Maintz; Christopher Bangard
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 2.711

4.  Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subcutaneous venous port-related complications in patients with cancer: a retrospective case-control study.

Authors:  Linnea Dahlin; Knut Taxbro; Fredrik Hammarskjöld
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Analgesic Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Pecs II Block in Central Venous Port Catheter Implantation.

Authors:  Mehmet Emin Ince; Ender Sir; Sami Eksert; Nadide Ors; Gokhan Ozkan
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 3.133

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.