Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Oct 27, 2025; 17(10): 109407
Published online Oct 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i10.109407
Published online Oct 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i10.109407
Figure 1 Comparison of operation time between experimental and control groups (minutes).
aP < 0.001. Figure 1 illustrates the significant reduction in operation time achieved by the experimental group (image pre-measurement combined with intracavitary electrocardiogram) compared to the control group (traditional anatomical landmark technique), with particularly notable differences in venous puncture (4.2 ± 1.5 minutes vs 7.3 ± 2.8 minutes, P < 0.001) and catheter placement (7.1 ± 2.0 minutes vs 12.4 ± 3.5 minutes, P < 0.001) phases. Total operation time was markedly shorter in the experimental group (23.6 ± 5.2 minutes vs 31.5 ± 7.8 minutes, P < 0.001), while port placement times showed no significant difference between groups (12.3 ± 3.3 minutes vs 11.8 ± 3.0 minutes, P = 0.245).
Figure 2 Independent risk factors for complications after arm port implantation.
This forest plot illustrates the hazard ratios for risk factors associated with catheter-related complications in arm port implantation. Traditional anatomical landmark technique presents the highest risk [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.46-6.78, P = 0.004], followed by non-ideal catheter tip position (HR = 2.75, 95%CI: 1.25-5.63, P = 0.012), and body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (HR = 1.84, 95%CI: 1.07-3.56, P = 0.038), all showing statistically significant associations with increased complication rates. HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval; BMI: Body mass index.
Figure 3 Complications risk and prevention in arm port implantation: Technique comparison and risk factor analysis.
aP < 0.05 compared to the control group, with all differences being statistically significant. This figure demonstrates the clinical advantages of image pre-measurement combined with intracavitary electrocardiogram positioning technique in arm port implantation for colorectal cancer patients. The bar chart shows that the experimental group had significantly lower incidence rates of total and specific complications (thrombosis, displacement, occlusion, and infection). PSI: Pneumonia severity index; BSI: Bloodstream infection; PPI: Proton pump inhibitor; PPH/S: Primary postpartum hemorrhage/secondary.
- Citation: Xie GL, Heng J, Jia XF, Li Q, Chang R, Zhang N, Xie LL, Gao C. Image and intracavitary electrocardiogram-guided arm port placement in colorectal cancer: A retrospective comparative study. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(10): 109407
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i10/109407.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i10.109407
