L A Orci1, R P H Meier, P Morel, W Staszewicz, C Toso. 1. Division of Visceral Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are commonly used in patients with cancer. Although several methods of implantation have been described, there is not enough evidence to support the use of a specific technique on a daily basis. The objective of this study was systematically to assess the literature comparing percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched by two independent authors. No time limits were applied. A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, including randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. RESULTS: Six trials were included, with 772 patients overall. The primary implantation failure rate was significantly lower for the percutaneous approach compared with surgical cutdown (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.07 to 0.94; P = 0.039). There was no evidence supporting a significant difference in terms of risk of pneumothorax, haematoma, venous thrombosis, infectious events or catheter migration. After taking between-study heterogeneity into account by using a random-effects model, procedure duration was not significantly longer for surgical cutdown: weighted mean difference +4 (95 per cent c.i. -12 to 20) min (P = 0.625). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous subclavian vein puncture is associated with a higher TIVAD implantation success rate and a procedure duration similar to that of surgical cutdown. Pneumothorax develops exclusively after percutaneous puncture and requires special attention from clinicians dealing with TIVAD insertion.
BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are commonly used in patients with cancer. Although several methods of implantation have been described, there is not enough evidence to support the use of a specific technique on a daily basis. The objective of this study was systematically to assess the literature comparing percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched by two independent authors. No time limits were applied. A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, including randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous subclavian vein puncture with surgical venous cutdown. RESULTS: Six trials were included, with 772 patients overall. The primary implantation failure rate was significantly lower for the percutaneous approach compared with surgical cutdown (odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.07 to 0.94; P = 0.039). There was no evidence supporting a significant difference in terms of risk of pneumothorax, haematoma, venous thrombosis, infectious events or catheter migration. After taking between-study heterogeneity into account by using a random-effects model, procedure duration was not significantly longer for surgical cutdown: weighted mean difference +4 (95 per cent c.i. -12 to 20) min (P = 0.625). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous subclavian vein puncture is associated with a higher TIVAD implantation success rate and a procedure duration similar to that of surgical cutdown. Pneumothorax develops exclusively after percutaneous puncture and requires special attention from clinicians dealing with TIVAD insertion.
Authors: Gabriel Liberale; Michel El Houkayem; Claire Viste; Fikri Bouazza; Michel Moreau; Issam El Nakadi; Isabelle Veys Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Giuseppe Cavallaro; Alessandro Sanguinetti; Olga Iorio; Giuseppe D'Ermo; Andrea Polistena; Nicola Avenia; Gianfranco Silecchia; Giorgio De Toma Journal: Int Surg Date: 2014 Jul-Aug
Authors: V Almasi-Sperling; S Hieber; J Lermann; O Strahl; M W Beckmann; W Lang; T A Sagban Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Audrey E Ertel; Zachary D McHenry; Vijay K Venkatesan; Dennis J Hanseman; Koffi Wima; Richard S Hoehn; Shimul A Shah; Daniel E Abbott Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ulla Klaiber; Kathrin Grummich; Katrin Jensen; Daniel Saure; Pietro Contin; Felix J Hüttner; Markus K Diener; Phillip Knebel Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-04-22