Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 1
The main features of included studies for meta-analysis.
Study
Year
Country
Age
Sex
Case (arm)
Control (chest)
Mean duration (days)
Catheter size
Quality of studies
N
m
N
m
Arm
Chest
Marcy
2005
France
55.7
F
100
10
100
16
168
228
7F
Good
Peynircioglu
2007
Turkey
48.3
F
1
0
15
1
NA
462
5.8F1/6.8F2
Fair
Dong
2016
China
NA
F
810
45
995
52
NA
NA
NA
Good
Tippit
2018
USA
55
F
147
14
150
4
669.4
512.3
5.5F
Good
Yang
2018
Korea
51.6
F
176
16
55
9
175.2
202.4
5F1/8F2
Good
Wang
2019
China
52.3
F
95
7
76
6
176
109
4.8F1/6.6F2
Good
Xu
2017
China
50.6
F
25
0
56
NA
Fair
Decousus
2018
France
63
NA
2664
275
NA
NA
Fair
Awan
2019
Canada
NA
NA
73
4
NA
NA
Good
Pardo
2011
USA
52
NA
45
6
NA
NA
Fair
Teichgraber
2013
Germany
NA
NA
121
12
223
NA
Fair
Piran
2014
Canada
58.0
F/M
183
7
360
6–8F
Fair
Song
2015
Korea
51.4
F
191
15
368
8F
Good
Liu
2017
China
48.7
F
755
225
147.3
7-8F
Good
Mao
2017
China
46.0
F
158
10
245.2
7-8F
Good
Mo
2017
China
NA
F/M
658
12
NA
7-8F
Fair
LeVasseur
2018
Canada
55
NA
62
11
NA
NA
Fair
Song
2018
Korea
51.5
F
209
14
334.6
6.5–8F
Good
Makary
2018
USA
53.1
F
396
16
NA
8F
Fair
Erhancil
2019
Turkey
54
F
68
4
969.8
NA
Good
Isom
2019
USA
52.9
F
581
36
NA
NA
Fair
Zhang
2019
China
52
NA
110
11
NA
NA
Fair
Note. N: the number of total participants; m: the number of all patients who suffered from complications; meant the age was median while others were mean; 1: catheter size for arm port; 2: catheter size for chest port; NA: not accessible.
