Primary Open Versus Closed Implantation Strategy for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: The Multicentre Randomized Controlled PORTAS-3 Trial (DRKS 00004900).

OBJECTIVES: PORTAS-3 was designed to compare the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax in a primary open versus closed strategy for port implantation. BACKGROUND DATA: The implantation strategy for totally implantable venous access ports with the optimal benefit/risk ratio remains unclear. METHODS: PORTAS-3 was a multicentre, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Adult patients with oncological disease scheduled for elective port implantation were randomized to a primary open or closed strategy. Primary endpoint was the rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax. Assuming a difference of 2.5% between the 2 groups, a sample size of 1154 patients was needed to prove superiority of the open group. A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Between November 9, 2014 and September 5, 2016, 1205 patients were randomized. Of these, 1159 (open n = 583; closed n = 576) were finally analyzed. The rate of pneumothorax or haemothorax was significantly reduced with the open strategy [odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.88; P = 0.029]. Operation time was shorter for the closed strategy. Primary success rates, tolerability, morbidity, dose rate of radiation, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: A primary open strategy by cut-down of the cephalic vein, if necessary enhanced by a modified Seldinger technique, reduces the frequency of pneumothorax or haemothorax after central venous port implantation significantly compared with a closed strategy by primary puncture of the subclavian vein without routine sonographic guidance. Therefore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS 00004900.

Comprehensive complication index for NOTES procedures: results from a randomized controlled trial and comparison to published NOTES complication data.

OBJECTIVE: This investigation uses the comprehensive complication index (CCI) to compare complications after natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures. BACKGROUND: NOTES procedures are developed to miniaturize surgical trauma. NOTES publications inconsistently report complications. The CCI improves reporting of complications. METHODS: The CCI is calculated using complication data from a single center, double blind, randomized controlled trial comparing transvaginal [transvaginal cholecystectomy (TVC), N = 41] and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC, N = 51). Complications are assessed using the classification of surgical complications (CSC). Two different scenarios are applied to the CSC for definition of complications with an emphasis on minor complications. CSC data are fed into the free online CCI-calculator. The CCIs from complication data from other NOTES reports are calculated accordingly and compared to our results. RESULTS: The CCI allows easy indexing of complications with or without a CSC table. For scenario I, the mean CCI of CLC versus TVC is 3.3 (± 6.3; SD) versus 3.5 (± 6.4; n.s.) and for scenario II it is 7.6 (± 6.4) versus 6.5 (± 7.0; n.s.). The difference of the mean between the two scenarios is highly significant (p < 0.000). The mean CCIs of both groups and scenarios are below the CCI of 8.7 for a grade I CSC complication. Similar calculation of CCIs from other NOTES publications yields mean CCIs below 8.7 for the surgical procedures reported. CONCLUSION: The CCI results in a single, easily comparable complication index for surgical procedures whereas the CSC yields tabular results. A significant difference in interpretation occurs with variation in definition of complications. Average CCIs below a value of 10 describe low complication rates. Authors need to describe their definition of complications if using the CSC and the CCI. More emphasis should be given to reporting of minor complications. The use of the CCI for NOTES procedures will enable international comparison.