Background: This study investigated the incidences of thrombosis occlusion, infection and surgical complications between two commercially available implanted port systems. The survival of port-A devices were analyzed. Study Design: Medical records from 313 cancer patients who had received open-ended (Deltec) or closed-ended (Groshong) implanted port catheter insertions were retrospectively reviewed. Methods: The crude infection rates, thrombosis rates, surgical complication rates (chi-square test), as well as total catheter indwelling days (t-test) were compared between closed- and open-ended implanted port system insertion groups. A Kaplan Meier analysis and a stratified log rank test were used to compare the probabilities of infection/thrombosis-free days of the 2 insertion groups. Logistic and multivariate regression models were applied to analyze the outcome predictors. Results: The Groshong catheters (561±386.7 days) had greater (P<0.001) mean total catheter indwelling days than did Deltec catheters (231±226.8 days). But the crude infection, thrombosis, and surgical complication rates failed to show statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between closed- and open-ended implanted port system insertion groups. Surgical procedure (P=0.0002) and catheter type (P<0.0001) were predictive of total catheter indwelling days. However, 2 types of catheters had similar survival rates at the end of follow up (P>0.05). Conclusion: Even though the Groshong closed-ended catheter may have a marginal advantage in total catheter indwelling days, we found the crude infection, thrombosis occlusion, and device survival rates were similar between Deltec and Groshong groups.
Background: This study investigated the incidences of thrombosis occlusion, infection and surgical complications between two commercially available implanted port systems. The survival of port-A devices were analyzed. Study Design: Medical records from 313 cancer patients who had received open-ended (Deltec) or closed-ended (Groshong) implanted port catheter insertions were retrospectively reviewed. Methods: The crude infection rates, thrombosis rates, surgical complication rates (chi-square test), as well as total catheter indwelling days (t-test) were compared between closed- and open-ended implanted port system insertion groups. A Kaplan Meier analysis and a stratified log rank test were used to compare the probabilities of infection/thrombosis-free days of the 2 insertion groups. Logistic and multivariate regression models were applied to analyze the outcome predictors. Results: The Groshong catheters (561±386.7 days) had greater (P<0.001) mean total catheter indwelling days than did Deltec catheters (231±226.8 days). But the crude infection, thrombosis, and surgical complication rates failed to show statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between closed- and open-ended implanted port system insertion groups. Surgical procedure (P=0.0002) and catheter type (P<0.0001) were predictive of total catheter indwelling days. However, 2 types of catheters had similar survival rates at the end of follow up (P>0.05). Conclusion: Even though the Groshong closed-ended catheter may have a marginal advantage in total catheter indwelling days, we found the crude infection, thrombosis occlusion, and device survival rates were similar between Deltec and Groshong groups.