Frequency of pneumothorax and haemothorax after primary open versus closed implantation strategies for insertion of a totally implantable venous access port in oncological patients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

[Statutory provisions, aims, motives, attitudes and thinking on the outpatient operation profile of general and abdominal surgery]

AIM

The aim of the manuscript is to discuss and assess the implications and opportunities as well as dangers of "outpatientization" of surgical and inpatient services for general and abdominal surgery.

METHOD

Narrative overview with literature reference based on a PubMed search with the search terms: outpatient operations and inpatient interventions, AOP catalog, hybrid DRG, outpatient hernia surgery, outpatient proctological surgery, selective sector-equal reimbursement and day-care forms of care. RESULTS (KEY POINTS): - In the Anglo-American area, the treatment of inguinal hernias is predominantly carried out on an outpatient clinic basis. In the USA, Sweden and Denmark, for example, over 70% of all hernias are treated in an outpatient clinic setting, in Germany it is only 20%. In Germany, the catalog of operations that can be performed on an outpatient basis and other department-replacing interventions in hospitals defines outpatient interventions in accordance with § 115b Social Security Code (SGB) V (Germany). - The conversion from inpatient to outpatient hernia surgery has also failed so far due to an enormous difference in revenues. According to the will of the Federal Ministry of Health, the planned forms of semistationary care are intended to relieve the nursing staff in the hospitals and thus relieve the tense situation of nursing professionals. By the end of March 2023, a special industry-specific reimbursement, so-called hybrid DRGs, is to be agreed, which applies regardless of whether a paid service is provided on an outpatient or inpatient basis. - According to § 115b SGB V, whether a hernia can be performed under inpatient or outpatient conditions is also decided according to the location of the hernia. In the new AOP catalog, frailty is operationalized in the context factors via the degree of care and the Barthel index. If one compares the number of encryption procedures for the 5‑530 procedure (closure of an inguinal hernia) in 2005 (184,679) with the pre-corona year 2019 (179,851), it can be seen that the proportion of hernias treated in hospital remained approximately the same over a period of 14 years. - Most elective proctological procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis. For reasons of safety (bleeding) and practicality (pain management, dressing change of large abscesses), inpatient surgery is preferred: extensive hemorrhoidectomy in the case of massive findings, large abscesses, extensive perianal fistula corrections, particularly high transsphincteric or suprasphincteric fistulas. - Guidelines based on the British Guidelines for Ambulant Surgery should be required for comprehensive outpatient treatment in surgery. The introduction of corresponding hybrid DRGs seems to be the right way to cover the costs of outpatient surgery in hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The restructuring of the hospital landscape and the nationwide expansion of outpatient operations is an unavoidable requirement in view of rising costs in the healthcare system and impending financing bottlenecks, which will pose challenges for the surgical disciplines in the years to come. Outpatient surgery is already practiced in many areas but has not become established due to the different remuneration. The flat rates for the same branches can be a starting point here. Furthermore, evidence-based framework conditions must be created along the lines of the British Guidelines for Ambulant Surgery.

Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900)

OBJECTIVES

PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation.

BACKGROUND DATA

The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear.

METHODS

PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

Perioperative and Postoperative Complications of Ultrasound-Guided Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports via the Brachiocephalic Vein in Patients with Cancer: A Prospective Study

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) via the right brachiocephalic vein (BCV) or the left BCV approach.

Methods: Patients requiring TIVAP for chemotherapy were included in the study. US-guided TIVAPs via BCV were used for patients from July 2018 to December 2018. General information about the patients (sex, age, and diagnosis), side (right or left), surgical procedures and complications were recorded.

Results: A total of 107 TIVAPs in 107 patients (ages 38-73 years) were included, 75 via the right BCV and 32 via the left BCV. All of the patients underwent successful surgery. The BCV was successfully punctured on the first attempt in 99 patients (92.52%). Two attempts were needed in 6 patients (5.61%), and three attempts were necessary in 2 patients (1.87%). The mean operation time was 29 ± 5 min (range: 24 to 38 min). No serious complications occurred during the surgery, except the formation of a local haematoma in 1 case after artery puncture. During the follow-up period of 12 months, the incidence of long-term complications was 3.74% (4/107), including 2 cases of catheter-related infection and 2 cases of fibrin sheath formation. No serious complications such as catheter malposition or rupture were found.

Conclusion: US-guided TIVAP via the BCV offers an alternative for adults with good needle guidance and a low rate of perioperative and postoperative complications.

Do 'Videos' sections of Internet search engines provide accurate and adequate information about totally implantable venous access ports?

OBJECTIVE

After cancer diagnosis, patients often look to Internet to learn more about totally implantable venous access ports which improve compliance with systemic anticancer therapy, as they do not get enough information from healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the video quality on Internet about totally implantable venous access ports using the most used three Internet search engines worldwide.

METHODS

'Videos' sections of the most used three Internet search engines were queried using 'Chemotherapy Port', 'Port Catheter' and 'Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports' keywords. First, 50 results of each keyword in each search engine were analysed and evaluated according to a novel scoring system created by authors (totally implantable venous access port video evaluation score), Journal of the American Medical Association score and modified DISCERN score by independent reviewers. Obtained data were analysed by descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Of the 450 videos, 229 were evaluated. The total video length was 1394.38 min. The mean video length was 6.08 ± 5.39 min, and the mean video view count was 32,553.71 ± 83,524.23. Mean Journal of the American Medical Association score, modified DISCERN score and totally implantable venous access port video evaluation score were 2.33 ± 0.90, 2.43 ± 1.59 and 3.54 ± 3.47, respectively. According to totally implantable venous access port video evaluation score, of the videos, 1.3% were remarkable, 5.2% were useful, 25.8% were poor and 67.7% were useless. Of the videos, 36.7% have been presented by healthcare professionals. Mean Journal of the American Medical Association score, modified DISCERN score and totally implantable venous access port video evaluation score of these videos were 3.11 ± 0.68, 3.97 ± 0.93 and 4.69 ± 4.25, respectively (p = 0.000, p = 0.000 and p = 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Internet search engines' 'Videos' sections have the potential of providing information about totally implantable venous access ports. However, they are vulnerable to providing unreliable information. This study has showed that videos about totally implantable venous access ports are insufficient in terms of reliability and integrity and may mislead patients.

Ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access device through the right innominate vein in older patients is safe and reliable

AIM

Ultrasound guidance has become the routine method for catheterization, dramatically reducing failure and complication rates for totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) placement. The aim of the present study was to report the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided right innominate vein TIVAD placement in older patients.

METHODS

Between September 2015 and September 2017, 55 older patients underwent right innominate vein TIVAD placement under ultrasound guidance. Intraoperative fluoroscopy was always carried out. The technical success rate and complications were recorded and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100%. The success rate of the first puncture was 96.36% (53/55). The mean operation time was 28 ± 7 min (range 23-39 min), and the mean length of catheter introduction was 19.24 ± 2.65 cm (range 17-21 cm). The overall incidence of complications was 7.27% (4/55), including one arterial puncture with self-limiting hematoma, two cases of catheter-related infection and one case of fibrin sheath. No catheter malposition or catheter fracture was observed. At the time of this study, three TIVAD were pulled out unexpectedly, and 32 TIVAD are still in functional use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided puncture of the right innominate vein is safe and reliable to implant TIVAD, which can provide new options for older patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 218-221.

The Safety Level of Total Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents

OBJECTIVE

The implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) is one of the first procedures surgical residents learn. Complications after implantation procedures have a major impact on patient outcomes, as it may lead to a delay of chemotherapy regimens or of parenteral nutrition. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes after totally implantable venous access ports implantations done by resident and attending surgeons.

DESIGN

The study was performed as a retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The study took place in primary care at the Department of General and Visceral Surgery at Frankfurt University Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 760 primary totally implantable venous access ports implantations performed between March 2008 and December 2016 were included in a database. Three groups of surgeons doing the implantations were defined: Group A (residents alone), Group B (resident with help), and Group C (attending surgeons).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the surgeon groups in operation time (p < 0.001). The groups differed between Group A (mean, 49; SD, 22) and Group C (mean, 39; SD, 20); p < 0.001) and Group B (mean, 53; SD, 23) and Group C (mean, 39; SD, 20; p < 0.001). The incidence of surgical site infections between Groups A and C (3.6% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.003) and Groups B and C (2.5% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.027) differed also significantly. Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis operation time in minutes (OR, 1.04; 95%CI, 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001) was an independent risk factor for any intraoperative complications. For any postoperative complications younger age of the patient (OR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.97-0.99; p = 0.004) and benign primary disease (OR, 3.25; 95%CI, 1.55-6.64; p = 0.002) were independent risk factors based on multivariable regression analysis. Based on multivariable regression analysis a lower body mass index of the patient (OR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.86-0.99; p = 0.044), benign primary disease (OR, 2.89; 95%CI, 1.07-7.79; p = 0.036), and no chemotherapy (OR, 3.55; 95%CI, 1.50-8.39; p = 0.004) were independent risk factors for postoperative catheter infections. Surgeon group was no risk factor, neither for intraoperative and postoperative complications, nor for catheter explantation due to complications.

CONCLUSION

Residents performing alone or residents performing with help can safely handle a central venous access port implantation. In patients with several risk factors, however, an attending should assist.

Percutaneous versus Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement

The superiority of surgical cut-down of the cephalic vein versus percutaneous catheterization of the subclavian vein for the insertion of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) is debated. To compare the safety and efficacy of surgical cut-down versus percutaneous placement of TIVADs. This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of oncologic patients who had TIVADs implanted by 14 surgeons. Primary outcomes were inability to place TIVAD by the primary approach and postoperative complications within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included operative time. Two hundred and forty-seven (55.9%) percutaneous and 195 (44.1%) cephalic cut-down patients were identified. The 30-day complication rate was 5.2 per cent: 14 patients (5.7%) in the percutaneous and nine (4.6%) in the cut-down group. The technique was not a significant predictor of having a 30-day complication (odds ratio = 0.820; 95% confidence interval 0.342–1.879). Implantation failure was observed in 16 percutaneous patients (6.5%) and 28 cut-down patients (14.4%) (adjusted odds ratio for cephalic vs cut-down = 2.387; 95% confidence interval 1.275–4.606). The median operative time for percutaneous patients was 46 minutes (interquartile range = 35, 59) versus 37.5 minutes (interquartile range = 30, 49) for cut-down patients(P < 0.0001). Both the percutaneous and cut-down technique are safe and effective for TIVAD implantation. Operative times were shorter and the odds of implantation failure higher for cephalic cut-down. As implantation failure is common, surgeons should familiarize themselves with both techniques.

Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) provide patients with a safe and permanent venous access, for instance in the administration of chemotherapy for oncology patients. There are several methods for TIVAP placement, and the optimal evidence-based method is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three commonly used techniques for implanting TIVAPs: the venous cutdown technique, the Seldinger technique, and the modified Seldinger technique. This review includes studies that use Doppler or real-time two-dimensional ultrasonography for locating the vein in the Seldinger technique.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched August 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 7), as well as clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that randomly allocated people requiring TIVAP to the venous cutdown, Seldinger, or modified Seldinger technique. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion eligibility, with a third review author checking excluded studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed all studies for risk of bias. We assessed heterogeneity using Chi(2) statistic and variance (I(2)statistic) methods. Dichotomous outcomes, summarised as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), were: primary implantation success, complications (in particular infection), pneumothorax, and catheter complications. We conducted separate analyses to assess the two access veins, subclavian and internal jugular (IJ) vein, in the Seldinger technique versus the venous cutdown technique. We used both intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment analyses and pooled data using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with a total of 1253 participants in the review. Five studies compared Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) with venous cutdown technique (cephalic vein access). Two studies compared Seldinger (IJ vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein). One study compared the modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) with the venous cutdown (cephalic vein), and one study compared the Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus the Seldinger (IJ vein) technique.Seldinger technique (subclavian or IJ vein access) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We included seven trials with 1006 participants for analysis. Both ITT (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.65) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.98) showed that the Seldinger technique for implantation of TIVAP had a higher success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. We found no difference between overall peri- and postoperative complication rates: ITT (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.75) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.40). In the Seldinger group, the majority of the trials reported use of the subclavian vein for venous access, with only a limited number of trials utilising the IJ vein for access. When individual complication rates of infection, pneumothorax, and catheter complications were analysed, the Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) was associated with a higher rate of catheter complications compared to the venous cutdown technique: ITT (OR 6.77; 95% CI 2.31 to 19.79) and on-treatment analysis (OR 6.62; 95% CI 2.24 to 19.58). There was no difference in incidence of infections, pneumothorax, and other complications between the groups.Modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We identified one trial with 164 participants. ITT analysis showed no difference in primary implantation success rate between the modified Seldinger technique (69/82, 84%) and the venous cutdown technique (66/82, 80%), P = 0.686. We observed no differences in the peri- or postoperative complication rates.Seldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access): We identified one trial with 83 participants. The primary success rate was 84% (37/44) for Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus 74% (29/39) for the Seldinger (IJ vein). There was a higher overall complication rate in the subclavian group (48%) compared to the jugular group (23%), P = 0.02. However, when specific complications were compared individually, we found no differences between the groups.The overall quality of the trials included in this review was moderate. The methods used for randomisation were inadequate in four of the nine included studies, but sensitivity analysis excluding these trials did not alter the outcome. The nature of the interventions, either venous cutdown or Seldinger techniques, meant that it was not feasible to blind the participant or personnel, therefore we judged this to be at low risk of bias. The majority of participants in the included trials were oncology patients at tertiary centres, and the outcomes were applicable to the typical clinical scenario. For all outcomes, when comparing venous cutdown and Seldinger technique, serious imprecision was evident by wide confidence intervals in the included trials. The quality of the overall evidence was therefore downgraded from high to moderate. Due to the limited number of included studies we were unable to assess publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence showed that the Seldinger technique has a higher primary implantation success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. The majority of trials using the Seldinger technique used the subclavian vein for venous access, and only a few trials reported the use of the internal jugular vein for venous access. Moderate-quality evidence showed no difference in the overall complication rate between the Seldinger and venous cutdown techniques. However, when the Seldinger technique with subclavian vein access was compared with the venous cutdown group, there was a higher reported incidence of catheter complications. The rates of pneumothorax and infection did not differ between the Seldinger and venous cutdown group. We identified only one trial for each of the comparisons modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein) and Seldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access), thus a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn for these comparisons and further research is recommended.