Talk:Port-a-Cath

Rename to Port (medical)

I propose this article be renamed from Port-a-Cath to Port (medical) for the simple reason that, as the article indicates, Port-A-Cath is a registered trademark and a generic name exists. I propose Port (medical) but would support any non TM'ed name. Cburnett 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my experience, any such device is still referred to as a Port-a-Cath. Is there any evidence on prevalence of use? JFW | T@lk 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal: every interaction between my wife and her oncologist & surgeon referred to it as a just "a port", never once as a "port-a-cath".

Poking around I find the following:

Google for "medical port" have 32M and "port-a-cath" gave 135k.
Top hits for port-a-cath are wikipedia and Smiths Medical

I know it's a general rule for chemicals to go with the generic name (INN-specifically) instead of the trademark name: paracetamol vs. Tylenol; sildenafil vs. Viagra; tropicamide vs. Mydriacil; etc. Cburnett 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. This is a global wikipedia. FWIW, my daughter's oncology coordinator calls these things "a line for labs". --Una Smith 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Without question ask any UK doctor and they will use the term Port-A-Cath as the generic term (likewise venflon, hoover meaning vaccum cleaner, kleenex for tissue). That said, I'm not sure when wikipedia uses such real-world generic naming (Genericized trademark), vs giving a good redirect to the correct non-brand term. (in above examples Kleenex article notes has become a genericized trademark, Venflon is a redirect to Cannula, and Hoover is a disambiguation page). See also List of generic and genericized trademarks David Ruben ^Talk 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There it is. JFW states on his user page that he works in the UK, ergo why he knows it as Port-a-Cath. So this seems to be a larger issue of a cultural divide than just a trademark issue. Cburnett 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a fair amount of text about ports other than Port-a-Cath. Just invert some of the discussion to first describe the general concept (persistent venous access), then how it is done and why, then available products and their respective pros and cons. --Una Smith 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point I suggest Cburnett go ahead and move Port-a-Cath to port (medical). As creator of port (medical), I have no objection. --Una Smith 03:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]