Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler-assisted subclavian vein catheterization.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the rate of success and complications of Doppler-guided subclavian vein catheter insertion compared with standard insertion in patients considered at high risk for failure. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover trial. SETTING: University-affiliated tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Two hundred forty patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were stratified for 3 known risk factors: (1) prior surgery in the subclavian vein region, (2) prior radiotherapy at the attempted catheterization site, and (3) an abnormal weight-height ratio. INTERVENTIONS: Subclavian vein catheterization was performed either in standard or Doppler-guided fashion using the Smart Needle (Peripheral Systems Group, Mountain View, Calif), which is a Doppler probe at the tip of a cannulating needle. If subclavian vein catheterization was unsuccessful after 2 attempts, patients were crossed over to the other technique. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Successful cannulation of the subclavian vein. RESULTS: The success rate, either as an initial technique or as a salvage technique, and complication rate were not significantly different with use of the Smart Needle. A subgroup of physicians had a significantly lower success rate using the Smart Needle. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler guidance did not increase the success rate or decrease the complication rate of subclavian vein catheterization when compared with the standard technique in high-risk patients. Doppler guidance was not more useful than the standard technique as a salvage technique following a previous failure of catheterization. Furthermore, real-time Doppler guidance of subclavian vein catheterization is a technique that is highly operator dependent.

Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) as treatment for malignancy has been questioned. METHODS: From 1992 to 1997, 91 patients were entered into a prospective study of LCR for cancer. Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of LCR were compared in a cohort of patients matched for age, tumor stage, and type of colectomy who underwent open colon resection (OCR) during the same time period. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 26 months, there were no significant differences in survival rate for patients in the LCR, converted colon resection, and OCR groups. There were no port-site recurrences and the number of lymph nodes harvested was similar among the procedures. Hospital stay was significantly shorter if laparoscopic resection was successful. Total hospital costs were similar for LCR and OCR; however, the costs were significantly higher for converted colon resection. CONCLUSIONS: LCR is a sound oncologic procedure that can be performed with costs similar to OCR.