Objectives: To compare internal jugular vein approach and upper arm approach through basilic or cephalic veins in insertion of total implantable central venous port regarding early post-operative complications, patency rate, compliance and patient quality of life. Methods:We identified 50 patients who underwent totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) implantation in the arm (25 patients) or chest (25 patients) between November 2015 and November 2017. Implantation via an upper arm (cephalic or basilic) occurred through venous cut down, the internal jugular vein was performed using percutaneous technique. 1 All approaches were under fluoroscopic guidance. Early, postoperative complications were evaluated. During follow up, self-compliance and quality of life were assessed as well.Results: Technical success was 100%. Procedure-related arterial injury occurred in 3 patients in central approach only, post-operative hematoma or stitch inflammation and seroma were observed. Late complications included catheter infection, occlusion, pinch off syndrome and skin dehiscence. Thrompophlepities of the vein and extravasation in both techniques were documented and quality of life was assessed during follow up.Conclusions: Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) can be implanted with high technical success rates, and are associated with low rates of complications. Upper arm implantation may benefit clinicians and patients with respect to safety and comfort.
Objectives: To compare internal jugular vein approach and Upper arm approach through basilic or cephalic veins in insertion of total implantable central venous port regarding early post-operative complications, patency rate, compliance and patient quality of life. Patients and methods:We identified 50 patients who underwent totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) implantation in the arm (25 patients) or chest (25 patients) between November 2015 and November 2017. Implantation via an upper arm (cephalic or basilic) occurred through venous cut down, the internal jugular vein approach was performed using percutaneous technique. 1 All approaches were Under fluoroscopic guidance. Early post-operative Complications were evaluated. During follow up, self-compliance and quality of life were assessed as well.Results: Technical success was 100%. Procedure-related arterial injury occurred in 3 patients in central approach only. Post-operative hematoma, stitch inflammation and seroma were observed. Late complications including catheter infection, occlusion, pinch off syndrome, skin dehiscence, thrombophlebitis of the vein and extravasation in both technique was documented, and quality of life was assessed during follow up.Conclusions: Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) can be implanted with high technical success rates and are associated with low rates of complications. Upper arm implantation may benefit clinicians and patients with respect to safety and comfort.
Background Several methods have been postulated for the treatment of acute on chronic lower limb ischemia; among them, the hybrid procedure (combined open thrombectomy and angioplasty) is gaining popularity .It is aimed at clearing the vessel and treating the underlying vessel lesion in one step. Patients and Methods A total of 23 patients admitted to the vascular department were eligible for inclusion in this study. They were subjected to thromboembolectomy, followed by endovascular balloon dilatation with or without stenting. Data regarding the risk factors, procedure success, and complications were recorded. Results Hybrid procedures showed 91.6% immediate technical success and 82.6% primary limb salvage rate up to 6 months with accepted minor complications. and no major complications Conclusion The hybrid procedure provides an accepted outcome in treating immediately limb- threatening acute on chronic lower limb ischemia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.