Literature DB >> 16752357

Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience.

Barbaros Erhan Cil1, Murat Canyiğit, Bora Peynircioğlu, Tuncay Hazirolan, Selin Carkaci, Saruhan Cekirge, Ferhun Balkanci.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To present the midterm follow-up results of subcutaneous venous chest ports in adult patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2001 and November 2005, 476 subcutaneous venous chest ports were placed in 472 adult patients. Five patients underwent port implantation twice. All the ports had single lumen catheters. The procedures were performed under intravenous sedation as well as local anesthesia. All ports were placed on the anterior chest wall, except one, which was placed on the trapezius muscle.
RESULTS: The technical success rate was 99.8%. The procedure- related minor complication rate was 0.63% (total: 3 cases; 1 hematoma during local anesthesia application, and 2 early hematomas) and there were no major complications. Mean duration of catheter usage was 376 days (total: 178,997 catheter days; range: 2 to 1522 catheter days). Late complications occurred at a rate of 10.7% (51 cases). Among those 51 cases, 36 (7.6%) developed minor complications in which port removal was not needed; however, 15 ports (3.15%) had to be removed due to major complications. Seven ports (1.47%) were explanted due to treatment-resistant bacteremia and sepsis, in addition to 2 other ports (0.42%) because of port pocket infections. An additional 6 ports (1.26%) required explantation for the following reasons: skin necrosis (0.21%); incision dehiscence (0.21%); broken or torn catheter (0.42%); jugular vein thrombosis (0.21%); thrombosis of superior caval vein (0.21%).
CONCLUSION: Radiological implantation of subcutaneous venous ports can be performed with similar or lower complication rates as compared to the surgical literature, due to the obvious advantage of imaging guidance. Hence, we think that port implantation with imaging guidance will become the preferred implantation method in the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16752357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  14 in total

1.  Totally implantable venous power ports of the forearm and the chest: initial clinical experience with port devices approved for high-pressure injections.

Authors:  J P Goltz; C Noack; B Petritsch; J Kirchner; D Hahn; R Kickuth
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Micropuncture Access Set Use During Implantation of Totally Implantable Venous Access Device May Reduce Upper Extremity DVT Incidence Among Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Chul Seung Lee; Sung-Hoon Yoon; Seung-Min Lee; In Kyu Lee; Jang Young Kim; Hyun Min Cho; Min Ki Kim
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  A case of iatrogenic subclavian artery injury successfully treated with endovascular procedures.

Authors:  Takuji Yamagami; Rika Yoshimatsu; Osamu Tanaka; Hiroshi Miura; Yutaka Kawahito; Katsuhiko Oka; Hitoshi Yaku; Tsunehiko Nishimura
Journal:  Ann Vasc Dis       Date:  2011-03-26

4.  Subcutaneous infusion ports via the internal jugular vein: single center experience.

Authors:  Bulent Karaman; Cagatay Andic; Nisa Cem Oren; Bilal Battal; Bahri Ustunsoz
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2010-08

5.  Performance of venous port catheter insertion by a general surgeon: a prospective study.

Authors:  Mehmet Aziret; Oktay İrkörücü; Cihan Gökler; Enver Reyhan; Süleyman Çetinkünar; Timuçin Çil; Edip Akpınar; Hasan Erdem; Kamuran Cumhur Değer
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2015-05

Review 6.  Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology.

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Marcy
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  It appears to be safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation through subcutaneous venous port catheters in inpatient setting.

Authors:  Nuriye Yildirim Ozdemir; Hüseyin Abali; Berna Oksüzoğlu; Burçin Budakoğlu; Ilkay Akmangit; Nurullah Zengin
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided placement of central venous ports via internal jugular vein: retrospective analysis of 1254 port implantations at a single center.

Authors:  Se Jin Ahn; Hyo-Cheol Kim; Jin Wook Chung; Sang Bu An; Yong Hu Yin; Hwan Jun Jae; Jae Hyung Park
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center.

Authors:  Bilgin Kadri Aribaş; Kemal Arda; Ozge Aribaş; Nazan Ciledağ; Zeynel Yoloğlu; Elif Aktaş; Turgut Seber; Seyhmus Kavak; Yusuf Coşar; Hidir Kaygusuz; Ekrem Tekin
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  1000 Port-A-Cath ® placements by subclavian vein approach: single surgeon experience.

Authors:  S Mudan; A Giakoustidis; D Morrison; S Iosifidou; R Raobaikady; K Neofytou; J Stebbing
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.