Comparison of outcomes for chemo-port implantation performed in the operating room and interventional radiology suite: a retrospective observational study.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q3 SURGERY

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-02 DOI:10.4174/astr.2025.108.6.362

Yong-Man Park, Donghyoun Lee, Jaemin Jo, Won-Bae Chang

{"title":"Comparison of outcomes for chemo-port implantation performed in the operating room and interventional radiology suite: a retrospective observational study.","authors":"Yong-Man Park, Donghyoun Lee, Jaemin Jo, Won-Bae Chang","doi":"10.4174/astr.2025.108.6.362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Chemo-port insertion is performed by a radiologist or surgeon in an interventional radiology (IR) suite or an operating room (OR). The complication rate is approximately 3%-4%. However, there is still a lack of data for comparison when it is performed in different conditions such as IR suite and OR.Methods: This study is for the safety of adult cancer patients after chemo-port implantation by comparing postoperative complication types and rates in different places. Among 375 patients who underwent chemo-port implantation, 203 patients underwent chemo-port implantation by radiologists in an IR suite, and 172 patients underwent the procedure by general surgeons in an OR. In both groups, early and late mortality were investigated. Early and late complication types and rates were also compared, and our study results were compared to the literature.Results: Patients' characteristics showed no differences. Mortality after the procedure was 39 in OR vs. 72 in IR (P < 0.01). Early mortality at 7 days was 1 in IR, no patient in OR (P = 0.36). Catheter problems did not show a statistical difference in these 2 groups (1.16% vs. 0.49%, P = 0.47). Venous thrombosis happened in 4 and 7 (2.33% vs. 3.45%, P = 0.13), and the central line bloodstream infection was in 5 patients and 6 patients (2.91% vs.. 2.96%, P = 0.98), respectively. Skin problems were 6 and 7 (3.49% vs. 3.45%, P = 0.98). Port site infection happened in 6 patients in each group (3.49% vs. 2.96%, P = 0.77).Conclusion: Chemo-port implantation can be performed in OR or IR without difference in complication rates.","PeriodicalId":8071,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","volume":"108 6","pages":"362-366"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12149993/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2025.108.6.362","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Chemo-port insertion is performed by a radiologist or surgeon in an interventional radiology (IR) suite or an operating room (OR). The complication rate is approximately 3%-4%. However, there is still a lack of data for comparison when it is performed in different conditions such as IR suite and OR.

Methods: This study is for the safety of adult cancer patients after chemo-port implantation by comparing postoperative complication types and rates in different places. Among 375 patients who underwent chemo-port implantation, 203 patients underwent chemo-port implantation by radiologists in an IR suite, and 172 patients underwent the procedure by general surgeons in an OR. In both groups, early and late mortality were investigated. Early and late complication types and rates were also compared, and our study results were compared to the literature.

Results: Patients' characteristics showed no differences. Mortality after the procedure was 39 in OR vs. 72 in IR (P < 0.01). Early mortality at 7 days was 1 in IR, no patient in OR (P = 0.36). Catheter problems did not show a statistical difference in these 2 groups (1.16% vs. 0.49%, P = 0.47). Venous thrombosis happened in 4 and 7 (2.33% vs. 3.45%, P = 0.13), and the central line bloodstream infection was in 5 patients and 6 patients (2.91% vs.. 2.96%, P = 0.98), respectively. Skin problems were 6 and 7 (3.49% vs. 3.45%, P = 0.98). Port site infection happened in 6 patients in each group (3.49% vs. 2.96%, P = 0.77).

Conclusion: Chemo-port implantation can be performed in OR or IR without difference in complication rates.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一项回顾性观察性研究：在手术室和介入放射室进行化疗口植入术的结果比较。

目的：化疗端口插入由放射科医生或外科医生在介入放射（IR）套房或手术室（or）进行。并发症发生率约为3%-4%。然而，在IR套件和OR等不同条件下进行时，仍然缺乏数据进行比较。方法：比较不同地区成人肿瘤患者化疗口植入术后并发症类型及发生率，探讨化疗口植入术的安全性。在375名接受化疗端口植入的患者中，203名患者由放射科医生在IR套房进行化疗端口植入，172名患者由普通外科医生在手术室进行手术。对两组患者的早期和晚期死亡率进行了调查。比较早期和晚期并发症的类型和发生率，并与文献结果进行比较。结果：两组患者特征无明显差异。手术后死亡率OR组为39，IR组为72 （P < 0.01）。IR组7天早期死亡率为1例，OR组无一例（P = 0.36）。两组间导管问题发生率无统计学差异（1.16% vs. 0.49%, P = 0.47）。静脉血栓形成4例，静脉血栓形成7例（2.33%比3.45%,P = 0.13）；中心静脉血流感染5例，静脉血栓形成6例（2.91%比0.13）。2.96%, P = 0.98)。皮肤问题6例和7例（3.49% vs. 3.45%, P = 0.98）。两组共发生Port site感染6例（3.49% vs. 2.96%, P = 0.77）。结论：化疗口植入术在OR或IR下均可进行，并发症发生率无差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research SURGERY-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Manuscripts to the Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research (Ann Surg Treat Res) should be written in English according to the instructions for authors. If the details are not described below, the style should follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publications available at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website (http://www.icmje.org).