R Adamus1, S Beyer-Enke, P Otte, R Loose. 1. Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie, Klinikum Nürnberg Nord, Germany. adamus@klinikum-nuernberg.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided puncture of the subclavian vein instead of blind puncture or surgical procedure. The advantages compared with implantation of brachial ports are demonstrated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 41 oncologic patients the subclavian vein was punctured by ultrasound guidance in order to implant a port (34 left side, 7 right side). The study included 21 women and 20 men (range 34 - 79, mean 61 years). Imaging of the subclavian vein was performed with a 7,5 MHz linear ultrasound probe in B-mode and in colour doppler mode. Puncture was performed under ultrasound control (18 G, 45 mm needle when skin-vessel distance was < 3 cm, 19 G, 75 mm needle when skin-vessel distance was > 3 cm). In 27 patients a Bardport was implanted, in 14 patients a Vitalport (Cook). In three patients surgical port implantation failed. One of these patients had a partial thrombosis of the subclavian vein. RESULTS: Technical success was 100 %. In one patient we first punctured the subclavian artery at the beginning of our series without any complication. All port systems could be implanted. There was one haematoma in the port pocket without any effect to the port function. In the three surgical patients subclavian vein puncture and portimplantation was successful. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided puncture of the subclavian vein and port implantation by radiologists is a save procedure. A low risk approach to the subclavian vein is possible at any location. The long approach through the cubital vein with brachial port implantation is not necessary.
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided puncture of the subclavian vein instead of blind puncture or surgical procedure. The advantages compared with implantation of brachial ports are demonstrated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 41 oncologic patients the subclavian vein was punctured by ultrasound guidance in order to implant a port (34 left side, 7 right side). The study included 21 women and 20 men (range 34 - 79, mean 61 years). Imaging of the subclavian vein was performed with a 7,5 MHz linear ultrasound probe in B-mode and in colour doppler mode. Puncture was performed under ultrasound control (18 G, 45 mm needle when skin-vessel distance was < 3 cm, 19 G, 75 mm needle when skin-vessel distance was > 3 cm). In 27 patients a Bardport was implanted, in 14 patients a Vitalport (Cook). In three patients surgical port implantation failed. One of these patients had a partial thrombosis of the subclavian vein. RESULTS: Technical success was 100 %. In one patient we first punctured the subclavian artery at the beginning of our series without any complication. All port systems could be implanted. There was one haematoma in the port pocket without any effect to the port function. In the three surgical patients subclavian vein puncture and portimplantation was successful. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided puncture of the subclavian vein and port implantation by radiologists is a save procedure. A low risk approach to the subclavian vein is possible at any location. The long approach through the cubital vein with brachial port implantation is not necessary.