Arm port implantation in cancer patients

Marcy, Pierre-Yves; Figl, Andrea; Amoretti, N.; Ianessi, Antoine

doi:10.1007/s10147-010-0041-1

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there are some arguments regarding the implantation site for CVPs, we have adopted UACVPs rather than chest CVPs because of the easier and safer access to the central blood vessel, as supported by Marcy et al [ 16 ]. In this study, the UACVPs were placed successfully in all patients without any implantation-related complications, including pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture, or cardiovascular problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe have employed upper arm central venous ports (UACVPs) since 2006 for long-term intravenous chemotherapy (CTx) or fluid supplementation. We evaluated the long-term availability of CVPs implanted in the upper arm to determine whether UACVPs could be one of the treatment options besides chest CVPs in terms of CVP-related complications.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs at Kyoto University Hospital from 1 April, 2006 to 30 June, 2009. We assessed the indwelling duration of the UACVPs and the incidences of early and late UACVP-related complications.ResultsA total of 433 patients underwent subcutaneous implantation of UACVPs during this time period. The cumulative follow-up period was 251,538 catheter days, and the median duration of UACVP indwelling was 439.0 days (1–2, 24). There was no UACVP-related mortality throughout the study period. A total of 83 UACVP-related complications occurred (19.2 %), including 43 cases of infection (9.9 %, 0.17/1000 catheter days), ten cases of catheter-related thrombosis (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), ten cases of occlusion (2.3 %, 0.040/1000 catheter days), nine cases of catheter dislocation (2.0 %, 0.036/1000 catheter days), five cases of port leakage (1.2 %, 0.019/1000 catheter days), four cases of skin dehiscence (0.9 %, 0.015/1000 catheter days) and two cases of port chamber twist (0.5 %, 0.008/1000 catheter days). The removal-free one-year port availability was estimated at 87.8 %.ConclusionsUACVPs were of long-term utility, with complication rates comparable to those of chest CVPs previously reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, for a long period of time, the subclavian vein has been a preferred route for placement of the central venous catheter. This route provides a lower chance of infection and good stability on the chest wall [10]. Because the left innominate vein forms an acute angle from the vena cava, and has the possibility of damaging the thoracic duct, the right subclavian vein is preferred over the left.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety of a Totally Implantable Central Venous Port System with Percutaneous Subclavian Vein Access

Keum

Kim

Chae

2013

Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe role of totally implantable central venous port (TICVP) system is increasing. Implantation performed by radiologist with ultrasound-guided access of vein and fluoroscope-guided positioning of catheter is widely accepted nowadays. In this article, we summarized our experience of TICVP system by surgeon and present the success and complication rate of this surgical method.Materials and MethodsBetween March 2009 and December 2010, 245 ports were implanted in 242 patients by surgeon. These procedures were performed with one small skin incision and subcutaneous puncture of subclavian vein. Patient's profiles, indications of port system, early and delayed complications, and implanted period were evaluated.ResultsThere were 82 men and 160 women with mean age of 55.74. Port system was implanted on right chest in 203, and left chest in 42 patients. There was no intraoperative complication. Early complications occurred in 11 patients (4.49%) including malposition of catheter tip in 6, malfunction of catheter in 3, and port site infection in 2. Late complication occurred in 12 patients (4.90%).ConclusionSurgical insertion of TICVP system with percutaneous subclavian venous access is safe procedures with lower complications. Careful insertion of system and skilled management would decrease complication incidence.

show abstract

“…27,28 It is known that the rate of complications, such as a pneumothorax, when using the IJV should be reduced to improve patient comfort. 29 When the US-guided method is used, most of the problems associated with the patient (such as obesity and vessel variations) or a surgeon's experience (which affects the success and complication rates) can be reduced. It is important to keep in mind that a US-guided technique consists of a learning curve; however, because there are no previous studies on this subject, it is difficult to predict the necessary number of procedures needed to develop proficiency.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the real-time ultrasound guidance provide safer venipuncture in implantable venous port implantation?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Arm port implantation in cancer patients

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

Safety of a Totally Implantable Central Venous Port System with Percutaneous Subclavian Vein Access

Does the real-time ultrasound guidance provide safer venipuncture in implantable venous port implantation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About