Abstract
The technique of percutaneous insertion of long-term venous access catheters is widely
used despite a lack of data confirming the perceived advantages of this method of
insertion over a cut-down technique. We carried out a prospective, randomized trial
involving 133 patients to compare the two insertion techniques. Three endpoints were
assessed: (1) operating time for insertion, (2) early complications, and (3) late
complications. The mean operating time for the percutaneous technique was less than
for the cut-down technique (41.5 minutes vs 47.6 minutes) but this difference was
not statistically significant. The percutaneous technique was associated with six
major early complications in 76 patients. With the cut-down technique there were none
in 57 patients. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in late complications between the two
groups. We conclude that the percutaneous technique does not reduce operating time
substantially, and is associated with an increased risk of early postoperative complications.
