Ultrasound guidance for Port-A-Cath insertion in children; a comparative study

Q2 Medicine
Osama A. Bawazir , Abdullah Bawazir
{"title":"Ultrasound guidance for Port-A-Cath insertion in children; a comparative study","authors":"Osama A. Bawazir ,&nbsp;Abdullah Bawazir","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.08.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Gaining vascular access in children is challenging. Ultrasound-guided central line insertion in adults became the standard of care; however, its role in children is not clear. Our objective was to evaluate the ultrasound-guided Port-A-Cath or totally implanted long-term venous access device insertion in pediatric patients compared to the traditional approach.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This single-institution retrospective cohort study included 169 children who had port-A-catheters between May 2016 and Oct 2019. The patients were divided into two groups; group A included patients who had Port-A-Cath insertion using the landmark method (n = 117), and Group B included patients who had ultrasound-guided Port-A-Cath insertion (n = 52). Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were collected and compared between the two groups. The study outcomes were operative time and catheter insertion-related complications.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no significant difference in age or gender between both groups (<em>P</em> = .33 and .71, respectively). Eleven cases in group A and two cases in group B were converted to cut down technique because of difficulty in inserting the guidewire. There was no difference in the indication of the need for the port-A-Cath between both groups. The mean operative time for group A was 47 min and for group B was 41.7 min (<em>P</em> &lt; .042). Two patients had intraoperative bleeding and hemothorax and required blood transfusion and chest tube insertion in group A. No statistically significant difference was found in the reported complications between the groups. However, the insertion-related complications were higher in group A (<em>P</em> = .053). No procedure-related mortality was reported.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Ultrasound-guided insertion of Port-A-Cath is an effective and safe technique with a reduction of failure rate. It should be considered the standard technique for Port-A-Cath insertion in the pediatric population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36646,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 181-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.08.002","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235264672030065X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background

Gaining vascular access in children is challenging. Ultrasound-guided central line insertion in adults became the standard of care; however, its role in children is not clear. Our objective was to evaluate the ultrasound-guided Port-A-Cath or totally implanted long-term venous access device insertion in pediatric patients compared to the traditional approach.

Methods

This single-institution retrospective cohort study included 169 children who had port-A-catheters between May 2016 and Oct 2019. The patients were divided into two groups; group A included patients who had Port-A-Cath insertion using the landmark method (n = 117), and Group B included patients who had ultrasound-guided Port-A-Cath insertion (n = 52). Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were collected and compared between the two groups. The study outcomes were operative time and catheter insertion-related complications.

Results

There was no significant difference in age or gender between both groups (P = .33 and .71, respectively). Eleven cases in group A and two cases in group B were converted to cut down technique because of difficulty in inserting the guidewire. There was no difference in the indication of the need for the port-A-Cath between both groups. The mean operative time for group A was 47 min and for group B was 41.7 min (P < .042). Two patients had intraoperative bleeding and hemothorax and required blood transfusion and chest tube insertion in group A. No statistically significant difference was found in the reported complications between the groups. However, the insertion-related complications were higher in group A (P = .053). No procedure-related mortality was reported.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided insertion of Port-A-Cath is an effective and safe technique with a reduction of failure rate. It should be considered the standard technique for Port-A-Cath insertion in the pediatric population.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

超声引导下儿童置入术比较研究
背景:在儿童中获得血管通路是具有挑战性的。超声引导下的成人中心静脉导管插入成为标准的治疗方法;然而,它在儿童中的作用尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估超声引导下的Port-A-Cath或完全植入的长期静脉通路装置在儿科患者中的应用与传统方法的比较。方法该单机构回顾性队列研究纳入了2016年5月至2019年10月期间使用a口导管的169名儿童。患者分为两组;A组采用里程碑式方法行Port-A-Cath置入的患者117例,B组采用超声引导下行Port-A-Cath置入的患者52例。收集两组术前、术中、术后资料并进行比较。研究结果为手术时间和导管插入相关并发症。结果两组患者年龄、性别差异无统计学意义(P = 0.33, P = 0.71)。A组11例,B组2例,均因导丝插入困难而改用切下技术。两组之间在需要a - cath的适应症上没有差异。A组平均手术时间为47 min, B组平均手术时间为41.7 min (P <.042)。a组有2例患者术中出血、血胸,需输血、插胸管,两组间报告的并发症无统计学差异。而A组插入相关并发症发生率较高(P = 0.053)。无手术相关死亡率报告。结论超声引导下置入a - port - cath是一种安全有效的技术,可降低失败率。在儿科人群中,它应该被视为a - cath插入的标准技术。
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
International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信