H. I. Saber, A. Farid, Tamer A. Wafa, Hani I. Taman
{"title":"Central Venous Access in Neonates: Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Access and Minimal Surgical Open Methods","authors":"H. I. Saber, A. Farid, Tamer A. Wafa, Hani I. Taman","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_138_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In neonates, percutaneous central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is often a challenging technique. Recent reports have reported the efficacy of ultrasound (US) guidance when performing such an intervention. We conducted this study to compare US-guided and minimal surgical CVC insertion regarding time and ease of insertion, reliability, and complications. Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized study included 92 neonates scheduled for CVC insertion. They were divided into two groups: Group A (46 neonates) underwent the US-guided approach and Group B (46 neonates) underwent the surgical approach. The number of attempts and the duration of the procedure were documented in both groups. In addition, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: Each of patient's age, gender, weight, and the indication of catheter insertion were statistically comparable between the two groups. The number of trials showed a significant increase in Group A (1.52 vs. 1.07 in Group Bp <0.001). Nevertheless, the time of the procedure was significantly decreased in the same group (3.68 vs. 10.21 in Group Bp <0.001). [Table 2] summarizes the previous findings. Failure was encountered only in one case in Group A (2.2%), which was converted to the open surgical technique. In general, the incidence of complications showed no significant difference between the two approaches. Conclusion: Although US-guided CVC insertion is associated with an increased number of trials, the duration of the procedure is significantly diminished with its use. Furthermore, it has a high success rate in addition to a comparable complication profile with the traditional surgical method.","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"38 1","pages":"395 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_138_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In neonates, percutaneous central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is often a challenging technique. Recent reports have reported the efficacy of ultrasound (US) guidance when performing such an intervention. We conducted this study to compare US-guided and minimal surgical CVC insertion regarding time and ease of insertion, reliability, and complications. Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized study included 92 neonates scheduled for CVC insertion. They were divided into two groups: Group A (46 neonates) underwent the US-guided approach and Group B (46 neonates) underwent the surgical approach. The number of attempts and the duration of the procedure were documented in both groups. In addition, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: Each of patient's age, gender, weight, and the indication of catheter insertion were statistically comparable between the two groups. The number of trials showed a significant increase in Group A (1.52 vs. 1.07 in Group Bp <0.001). Nevertheless, the time of the procedure was significantly decreased in the same group (3.68 vs. 10.21 in Group Bp <0.001). [Table 2] summarizes the previous findings. Failure was encountered only in one case in Group A (2.2%), which was converted to the open surgical technique. In general, the incidence of complications showed no significant difference between the two approaches. Conclusion: Although US-guided CVC insertion is associated with an increased number of trials, the duration of the procedure is significantly diminished with its use. Furthermore, it has a high success rate in addition to a comparable complication profile with the traditional surgical method.
背景:在新生儿中,经皮中心静脉导管(CVC)的插入通常是一项具有挑战性的技术。最近的报道报道了超声(US)指导在进行这种干预时的疗效。我们进行了这项研究,以比较美国引导和最小手术CVC插入的时间、插入的便利性、可靠性和并发症。患者和方法:这项前瞻性随机研究纳入了92名计划进行CVC插入的新生儿。他们被分为两组:A组(46名新生儿)采用us引导入路,B组(46名新生儿)采用手术入路。记录两组患者的尝试次数和手术持续时间。并记录术中及术后并发症。结果:两组患者的年龄、性别、体重、置管指征均具有统计学上的可比性。试验数在a组显著增加(Bp <0.001组为1.52 vs 1.07)。然而,同一组的手术时间明显缩短(3.68 vs. 10.21 Bp <0.001组)。[表2]总结了以往的研究结果。A组仅有1例(2.2%)手术失败,改为开放手术。总的来说,两种入路并发症的发生率无明显差异。结论:尽管美国引导的CVC植入与试验数量的增加有关,但随着其使用,该过程的持续时间显着缩短。此外,除了并发症与传统手术方法相当外,它具有很高的成功率。