Clinical Experience with a Power Injectable Arm Port
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highlights Port insertion is a well-tolerated alternative to chest ports for long-term venous access. Insertion into the brachial vein had the lowest incidence of complications. Venous thrombosis was increased using the MedComp, Dignity Mini port. Abstract Background: Totally implanted venous access devices, or ports, are safe and durable, allowing for long-term venous access. Port insertion in the upper extremity is associated with high rates of technical success and few complications. This retrospective review evaluates complication rates of power injectable ports in the upper arm preformed at a tertiary academic institution. Methods: A single center retrospective review of all patients undergoing arm port implantation between October 1, 2017, and January 30, 2019, were included. A minimum of 11 months of data was reviewed for each subject. A total of 165 subjects were initially enrolled. Results: The most frequent indication for port insertion was malignancy (n = 157). Port insertion technical success rate was 99.4%. There was no significant difference in port-related complications by gender, malignancy, clinical indication for placement, or arm used for implantation. Rates of infection (5.5%), mechanical malfunction (6.7%), device removal (10%) and arterial injury (0%) were similar to previously reported values. The rate of port-related venous thrombosis was 8.6%, exceeding previously reported values. Conclusion: Venous thrombosis was increased using this arm port. The polyurethane catheter material may play a role in this. Further work is warranted to investigate venous thrombosis for this device that incorporates information about insertion vein size and insertion vein characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".