Predictors of Complications in Patients Undergoing Port Catheter Application: A Comparative Study

İlker Kolbaş, Elçin Ersöz Köse, Gökay Reyhan, Rıza Serdar Evman, Eyüp Turgut Işitmangil, Sauirbay Sakhanov

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.31557/apjcp.2025.26.7.2439
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is a common treatment for cancer patients that can prolong the survival of malignancies. Central venous access provides safety and comfort during chemotherapy to cancer patients. The aim of our study was predictors of complications in patients who underwent subcutaneous venous port catheter placement. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted after the approval of local review board Demographic characteristics, indications, surgical results, and complications of all patients with malignancy diagnoses undergoing subcutaneous venous port catheterization in the thoracic surgery clinics were recorded. The age, gender, indications, procedure duration, layer placement site, side, complication type and development time of the treated patients were compared. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were included in the final analysis. Forty-four (11.6%) patients had complications; 27 (7.1%) had thrombosis, 6 (1.6%) had protrusion, 4 (1.1%) had pneumothorax, 3 (0.8%) had infection, 3 (0.8%) had mispositioning, and 1 (0.3%) had cardiac arrest due to the procedure. Significant differences were observed between complication groups regarding age, sex, insertion location/side, and lymphoma presence. Logistic regression analysis identified insertion side, presence of lymphoma, and insertion location as independent predictors, with insertion side showing the strongest association (p=0.003, p=0.014 and p=0.017 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to acknowledge that the application of left-sided catheters, presence of lymphoma and the selection of the internal jugular veins are associated with an increased risk of complications in patients requiring port placement.