Cochrane · systematic review · CD008942
Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports
Hsu, CCT, Kwan, GNC, Evans‐Barns, H, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 5 · 100%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Venous cutdown versus Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports
Population: patients requiring an elective TIVAP insertion for treatment of benign or malignant disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Success of primary implantation Venous cutdown vs Seldinger technique | OR 0.4 [0.25, 0.65] | 7 studies · 1006 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Overall perioperative and postoperative complications Venous cutdown vs Seldinger technique | OR 1.16 [0.76, 1.75] | 7 studies · 1006 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Pneumothorax Venous cutdown vs Seldinger technique | OR 1.97 [0.53, 7.34] | 7 studies · 1006 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Infections Venous cutdown vs Seldinger technique | OR 0.63 [0.25, 1.56] | 6 studies · 906 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Catheter/port‐related complications Venous cutdown vs Seldinger technique | OR 1 [0.61, 1.64] | 7 studies · 1006 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |