Value of a novel Y-Z magnetic totally implantable venous access port in improving the success rate of one-time needle insertion

Background and objectives

A totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) is a commonly used intravenous infusion device for patients receiving chemotherapy or long-term infusion therapy. To improve the success rate of one-time insertion of the Huber needle, we developed a novel Y-Z magnetic TIVAP (Y-Z MTIVAP), which we produced using three-dimensional printing technology.

Materials and methods

The Y-Z MTIVAP includes a magnetic port body and a magnetic positioning device. For testing, we established four venous port implantation models using the two types of TIVAPs and two implantation depth ranges (≤5 mm and >5 mm). Twenty nurses performed Huber needle puncture with the four models, and we recorded the number of attempts required for successful needle insertion, the operation time, and the operator's satisfaction.

Results

The success rate for one-time needle insertion with the Y-Z MTIVAP was significantly higher than that with the traditional TIVAP at either depth range (100% vs. 75% at ≤5 mm, p = 0.047; 95% vs. 35% at >5 mm, p < 0.001). With increasing implantation depth, the success rate for one-time insertion was significantly reduced with the traditional TIVAP (75% at ≤5 mm vs. 35% vs. >5 mm, p = 0.025), but the success rate with the Y-Z MTIVAP was not significantly affected (100% vs. 95%, p = 1.000). The operation time with the Y-Z MTIVAP was significantly shorter than that with the traditional TIVAP at either depth range (both p < 0.001), and 90% of operators reported that the Y-Z MTIVAP was superior to the traditional TIVAP.

Conclusions

The theoretical design of Y-Z MTIVAP is feasible, and the preliminary in vitro simulation experiment shows that it can significantly improve puncture success rate and shortened operation time.

Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques.

Methods

We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, intra-operative complications, mechanical complications, conversion rate, early port removal, and operating time.

Results

Thirteen comparative studies including 3,896 patients (2,176 for chest ports, and 1,720 for arm ports) were identified. The present study showed that arm port was associated with higher procedure conversion rate (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; odd ratios [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.46; p<0.001), but lower incidence of intra-operative complications (1.38% in chest port group and 0.41% in arm port group; OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07-5.29; p=0.03). There were no between-group differences with respect to total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, mechanical complications, early port removal, and operating time. Subgroup analysis of patients under 60 years revealed that no significant difference was detected in intra-operative events (1.19% in chest port group and 0.02% in arm port group, OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.74-9.08; p<0.14), indicating that age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events. Sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions of all endpoints of interest.

Conclusion

Arm port is associated with higher procedure conversion rate, but lower incidence of intra-operative complications, and age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events.