Literature DB >> 33814844

Chemoport Insertion-Less Is More.

Tanay Shah1, D G Vijay1, Niket Shah1, Bhavesh Patel1, Samir Patel1, Nikhilsinh Khant1, Kalyansing Gothwal1.   

Abstract

Implantable chemoport is a very useful device for long-term venous access for infusion of chemotherapeutic drugs and other agents. There are few studies from resource poor countries reporting complications of chemoport. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of chemoport insertion without image guidance and by closed technique without direct visualisation of a major vein (mainly IJV) and to study the complications associated with the procedure. This was a prospective observational study which analysed 263 patients who underwent chemoport insertion. The medical records of these patients were analysed for the patient characteristics, diagnosis, port-related complications, and their management. A total of 263 patients who were harbouring either locoregionally advanced or metastatic tumour requiring either chemotherapy or targeted treatment or both were included in the study. In total, 133 (50.57%) were female patients and 130 were male patients (49.43%). A total of 236 patients (89.73%) underwent port insertion procedures under local anaesthesia. None of the patients had any major intra-operative complications. Postoperatively, 4 patients (1.52%) were found to have port catheter malposition; 3 out of this 4 were corrected under IITV guidance as a second procedure under local anaesthesia only. One patient (0.38%) required formal removal and replacement of port. Four patients (1.52%) developed IJV thrombosis requiring port removal and anti-coagulation. One patient (0.38%) developed thrombus in the right atrium. There were 2 port site infections (0.74%) requiring port removal (SSI cat. 5). Low complication rates of port insertion were observed in the present, large, prospective study. Complication rates may be further reduced by using a well-designed procedure, experienced surgeons, an aseptic environment, ultrasound-guided puncture, and fluoroscopy with contrast media. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-020-01265-6. © Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemoport; IJV; Without image guidance

Year:  2021        PMID: 33814844      PMCID: PMC7960807          DOI: 10.1007/s13193-020-01265-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0975-7651


  25 in total

1.  Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems.

Authors:  Ulf K M Teichgräber; Stephan Kausche; Sebastian N Nagel; Bernhard Gebauer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence.

Authors:  S Vescia; A K Baumgärtner; V R Jacobs; M Kiechle-Bahat; A Rody; S Loibl; N Harbeck
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 32.976

3.  The "pinch-off sign": a warning of impending problems with permanent subclavian catheters.

Authors:  D R Aitken; J P Minton
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 4.  Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients.

Authors:  Melina Verso; Giancarlo Agnelli
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients.

Authors:  Nasia Safdar; Dennis G Maki
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients.

Authors:  C Araújo; J P Silva; P Antunes; J M Fernandes; C Dias; H Pereira; T Dias; J L Fougo
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-06-12       Impact factor: 4.424

Review 7.  Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults.

Authors:  L Bishop; L Dougherty; A Bodenham; J Mansi; P Crowe; C Kibbler; M Shannon; J Treleaven
Journal:  Int J Lab Hematol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.877

8.  A prospective observational study of the outcome of central venous catheterization in 100 patients.

Authors:  Arun H D Kumar; Nataraj M Srinivasan; Jayashree M Thakkar; Shaji Mathew
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2013 Jan-Apr

9.  Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion.

Authors:  Dong Hyun Kim; Dong Yeon Ryu; Hyuk Jae Jung; Sang Su Lee
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologists: A single-center experience on periprocedural complications.

Authors:  Yazmin Yaacob; Dang V Nguyen; Zahiah Mohamed; A Razali A Ralib; Rozman Zakaria; Sobri Muda
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2013-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.