PURPOSE: Long-term venous access is cumbersome in children because of their thin caliber veins, less cooperative nature, and easy compromise of venous integrity. Hence, a study was conducted to evaluate the indication, efficacy, and safety of chemoport in children who require chronic venous access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children who underwent chemoport insertion between January 2008 and December 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 159 children (169 chemoports) were included in the study. The most common indication for chemoport insertion was acute lymphoblastic leukemia (51.5%). The mean chemoport days were 832±666 days. Among the 169 chemoports, 55.0% were removed after treatment completion. The chemoport was not removed in 35.5% of the patients, as 28.4% of the patients were still under treatment and 7.1% died during the treatment. Sixteen patients (0.1 per 1,000 chemoport days) had a premature chemoport removal. The indications were port-related bloodstream infection (12 patients), port pocket infection (1 patient), exposed chemoport (1 patient), and blocked chemoport catheter (2 patients). Twenty-two patients (0.15 per 1,000 chemoport days) had complications of port-related bloodstream infection (0.09 per 1,000 chemoport days), making it the most common. Other complications include block, fracture, arrhythmias, avulsion, bleeding, decubitus-over-port, and port pocket infection. CONCLUSION: Owing to the safe, reliable, and low complication rate of chemoports, more children can be saved from deadly illnesses. Chemoport is the best option for children who require chronic venous access.
Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Catheters ; Child ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Leukemia ; Observational Study ; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma ; Retrospective Studies ; Vascular Access Devices ; Veins

Purpose: Intussusception is a common pediatric surgical emergency and non-operative reduction is its first line of management. We aimed to compare 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 3 tertiary care centers in India from January 2017 through December 2019. In the 3 centers, the primary reduction techniques were ultrasound-guided saline reduction (USR), fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR), and fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR), respectively. As per these techniques used, we compared clinical characteristics, such as the successful reduction. Results: A total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 reduction techniques in the study period. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Mean time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group (30.8 ± 8.9 seconds), compared with the USR (575.0 ± 242.3 seconds) and FBR groups (495.0 ± 118.4 seconds; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). No association was found between the patients’ age or symptom duration and the successful reduction. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences. Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group while no complications occurred in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality. Conclusion All 3 techniques are equally effective, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction technique should be chosen based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as local availability.

Purpose: Intussusception is a common pediatric surgical emergency and non-operative reduction is its first line of management. We aimed to compare 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 3 tertiary care centers in India from January 2017 through December 2019. In the 3 centers, the primary reduction techniques were ultrasound-guided saline reduction (USR), fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR), and fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR), respectively. As per these techniques used, we compared clinical characteristics, such as the successful reduction. Results: A total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 reduction techniques in the study period. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Mean time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group (30.8 ± 8.9 seconds), compared with the USR (575.0 ± 242.3 seconds) and FBR groups (495.0 ± 118.4 seconds; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). No association was found between the patients’ age or symptom duration and the successful reduction. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences. Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group while no complications occurred in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality. Conclusion All 3 techniques are equally effective, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction technique should be chosen based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as local availability.

Purpose: Intussusception is a common pediatric surgical emergency and non-operative reduction is its first line of management. We aimed to compare 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 3 tertiary care centers in India from January 2017 through December 2019. In the 3 centers, the primary reduction techniques were ultrasound-guided saline reduction (USR), fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR), and fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR), respectively. As per these techniques used, we compared clinical characteristics, such as the successful reduction. Results: A total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 reduction techniques in the study period. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Mean time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group (30.8 ± 8.9 seconds), compared with the USR (575.0 ± 242.3 seconds) and FBR groups (495.0 ± 118.4 seconds; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). No association was found between the patients’ age or symptom duration and the successful reduction. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences. Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group while no complications occurred in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality. Conclusion All 3 techniques are equally effective, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction technique should be chosen based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as local availability.

Purpose: Intussusception is a common pediatric surgical emergency and non-operative reduction is its first line of management. We aimed to compare 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 3 tertiary care centers in India from January 2017 through December 2019. In the 3 centers, the primary reduction techniques were ultrasound-guided saline reduction (USR), fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR), and fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR), respectively. As per these techniques used, we compared clinical characteristics, such as the successful reduction. Results: A total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 reduction techniques in the study period. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Mean time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group (30.8 ± 8.9 seconds), compared with the USR (575.0 ± 242.3 seconds) and FBR groups (495.0 ± 118.4 seconds; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). No association was found between the patients’ age or symptom duration and the successful reduction. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences. Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group while no complications occurred in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality. Conclusion All 3 techniques are equally effective, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction technique should be chosen based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as local availability.