【摘要】 目的 介绍头静脉切开静脉输液港置入术，并与传统手术方法进行比较。方法 2019年10月～2020年12月接受经头静脉切开置入输液港手术的病人32例，同期同手术组行颈内静脉置入输液港47例，比较两组手术时间、并发症等。结果 28例经头静脉切开置入平均用时(25.93±4.77)分钟，同期颈内静脉穿刺平均手术时间(28.73±5.16)分钟，两组比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);头静脉切开组无血栓形成，颈内静脉穿刺组发生血栓13例，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);置管相关不良事件，头静脉切开组1例、颈内静脉穿刺组3例，两组相关治疗时间增加分别为0和(16.7±2.1)天，治疗费用增加分别为0和(1233±166.7)元，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 经头静脉切开方式置入输液港不增加手术时间，手术并发症少。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To introduce a new method of totally implantable venous-access ports(TIVAP) via cephalic vein venotomy.(CVV-Port).Methods The clinical and follow-up data of 32 patients who received TIVAP from October 2019 to December 2020 were summarized and analyzed. During the same period, the 47 patients who underwent CVV-Port were compared and analyzed in terms of operation time and complications.Results 28 patients received TIVAP successfully, the average operation time was(25.93±4.77)min, while the CCV-port group was(28.73±5.16)min, with no statistical difference(p<0.05). There was no thrombosis in the TIVAP group, and thrombosis in the CCV-port group in 13 cases, the difference was significant(p<0.05). Catheterization related adverse events were 1 case in TIVAP group and 3 cases in CCV-port group. There were statistically significant differences in the increase of treatment time and treatment cost between the two groups [0 vs.(16.7±2.1)d; 0 vs.(1233±166.7)yuan, both p<0.05].Conclusion TIVAP via cephalic vein section does not increase the operation time and has fewer complications.更多还原