BACKGROUND: We report our experience of using a totally implantable access port (TIAP) through the external jugular vein (EJV) when the cephalic vein (CV) approach is not feasible. METHODS: We reviewed 197 cases involving TIAP implantation through the EJV in a single medical center between January 1995 and January 2009. All the ports were implanted after the CV approach was found unfeasible. Patient characteristics, operating time, and early and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 50 years (range: 33-75). The mean operating time was 54.5 ± 7.5 minutes. Early complications within the first 30 postoperative days included port hematoma (2%) and catheter migration (2%). The late postoperative complications included catheter occlusion (2.5%), venous thrombosis (2%), and port infection (1.5%). There were no complications associated with TIAP disconnection. CONCLUSIONS: The EJV approach is an easy and safe alternative method for TIAP implantation when the CV approach is not feasible. This method can avoid conversion to percutaneous puncture of the subclavian vein, which could result in life-threatening complications such as pneumothorax and hemothorax. In patients with breast cancer or those who are contraindicated for TIAP implantation on the opposite side, the EJV cutdown approach provides an alternative route with comfortable and satisfactory results as complications with this approach are rare.
BACKGROUND: We report our experience of using a totally implantable access port (TIAP) through the external jugular vein (EJV) when the cephalic vein (CV) approach is not feasible. METHODS: We reviewed 197 cases involving TIAP implantation through the EJV in a single medical center between January 1995 and January 2009. All the ports were implanted after the CV approach was found unfeasible. Patient characteristics, operating time, and early and late complications were recorded. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 50 years (range: 33-75). The mean operating time was 54.5 ± 7.5 minutes. Early complications within the first 30 postoperative days included port hematoma (2%) and catheter migration (2%). The late postoperative complications included catheter occlusion (2.5%), venous thrombosis (2%), and port infection (1.5%). There were no complications associated with TIAP disconnection. CONCLUSIONS: The EJV approach is an easy and safe alternative method for TIAP implantation when the CV approach is not feasible. This method can avoid conversion to percutaneous puncture of the subclavian vein, which could result in life-threatening complications such as pneumothorax and hemothorax. In patients with breast cancer or those who are contraindicated for TIAP implantation on the opposite side, the EJV cutdown approach provides an alternative route with comfortable and satisfactory results as complications with this approach are rare.