BACKGROUND: Totally implantable access ports (Port-A) can be inserted using 2 techniques: cut-down and percutaneous. The cut-down method is safer than the percutaneous method. However, the cut-down method has a higher failure rate. We report an alternative method to decrease the failure rate of the cut-down method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 758 cases of Port-A implantation with cephalic vein cut-down were tried, and 56 cases failed. Of the 56 cases, 29 cases were converted to the percutaneous subclavian method (group A), and 27 cases were converted to the external jugular vein cut-down method (group B). The patient's characteristics, causes of failure of cephalic vein cut-down, operating time, and complications were compared. RESULTS: The failure rate of cephalic vein cut-down was 7.4%. The causes of failure of cephalic vein cut-down are described. There were 4 complications in group A, including one pneumothorax (1/29), one fracture of the catheter (1/29), one embolization of the catheter (1/29), and one hematoma formation in the port site (1/29); 2 complications occurred in group B, including one embolization of the catheter (1/27) and one hematoma in the port site (1/27). The total complications were 17.7%. CONCLUSION: Conversion to external jugular vein cut-down is safely and easily applied in cases of cephalic vein cut-down failure. This method did not take more time than the percutaneous subclavian method. However, placement of the port should be made more carefully to prevent angulation of the catheter. We provide an alternative method to deal with failure of cephalic vein cut-down.
BACKGROUND: Totally implantable access ports (Port-A) can be inserted using 2 techniques: cut-down and percutaneous. The cut-down method is safer than the percutaneous method. However, the cut-down method has a higher failure rate. We report an alternative method to decrease the failure rate of the cut-down method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 758 cases of Port-A implantation with cephalic vein cut-down were tried, and 56 cases failed. Of the 56 cases, 29 cases were converted to the percutaneous subclavian method (group A), and 27 cases were converted to the external jugular vein cut-down method (group B). The patient's characteristics, causes of failure of cephalic vein cut-down, operating time, and complications were compared. RESULTS: The failure rate of cephalic vein cut-down was 7.4%. The causes of failure of cephalic vein cut-down are described. There were 4 complications in group A, including one pneumothorax (1/29), one fracture of the catheter (1/29), one embolization of the catheter (1/29), and one hematoma formation in the port site (1/29); 2 complications occurred in group B, including one embolization of the catheter (1/27) and one hematoma in the port site (1/27). The total complications were 17.7%. CONCLUSION: Conversion to external jugular vein cut-down is safely and easily applied in cases of cephalic vein cut-down failure. This method did not take more time than the percutaneous subclavian method. However, placement of the port should be made more carefully to prevent angulation of the catheter. We provide an alternative method to deal with failure of cephalic vein cut-down.