Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients

Authors: Yanhong Li, Yonghua Cai, Xiaoqin Gan, Xinmei Ye, Jiayu Ling, Liang Kang, Junwen Ye, Xingwei Zhang, Jianwei Zhang, Yue Cai, Huabin Hu, Meijin Huang, Yanhong Deng

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The current study aims to compare the application and convenience of the upper arm port with the other two methods of implanted ports in the jugular vein and the subclavian vein in patients with gastrointestinal cancers.

Methods

Currently, the standard of practice is placement of central venous access via an internal jugular vein approach. Perioperative time, postoperative complications, and postoperative comfort level in patients receiving an implanted venous port in the upper arm were retrospectively compared to those in the jugular vein and the subclavian vein from April 2013 to November 2014.

Results

Three hundred thirty-four patients are recruited for this analysis, consisting of 107 in the upper arm vein group, 70 in the jugular vein group, and 167 in the subclavian vein group. The occurrence of catheter misplacement in the upper arm vein is higher than that in the other two groups (13.1 vs. 2.9 vs. 5.4 %, respectively, P = 0.02), while the other complications in the perioperative period were not significantly different. The occurrence of transfusion obstacle of the upper arm vein group is significantly lower than that of the jugular and subclavian groups (0.9 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.2 %, P = 0.01). The occurrence of thrombus is also lower than that of other two groups (0.9 vs. 4.3 vs. 3.6 %, P = 0.03). Regarding the postoperative comfort, the influences of appearance (0 vs. 7.1 vs. 2.9 %, P = 0.006) and sleep (0.9 vs. 4.2 vs. 10.7 %, P = 0.003) are significantly better than those of the jugular and subclavian vein groups.

Conclusions

Compared to the jugular and the subclavian vein groups, the implanted venous port in the upper arm vein has fewer complications and more convenience and comfort, and might be a superior novel choice for patients requiring long-term chemotherapy or parenteral nutrition.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sonobe M, Chen F, Fujinaga T, Sato K, Shoji T, Sakai H, et al. Use of totally implantable central venous access port via the basilic vein in patients with thoracic malignancies. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009;14:208–12.CrossRefPubMed Sonobe M, Chen F, Fujinaga T, Sato K, Shoji T, Sakai H, et al. Use of totally implantable central venous access port via the basilic vein in patients with thoracic malignancies. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009;14:208–12.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K, Jacquet J, McDade A, Boyer M, et al. Long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of implanted central venous access port devices (CVAPD) for the delivery of chemotherapy in cancer patients: institutional experience and review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1045–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K, Jacquet J, McDade A, Boyer M, et al. Long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of implanted central venous access port devices (CVAPD) for the delivery of chemotherapy in cancer patients: institutional experience and review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1045–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, Privitera G, Russello D, Puleo S, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg. 2001;136:1050–3.CrossRefPubMed Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, Privitera G, Russello D, Puleo S, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg. 2001;136:1050–3.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Italiano A, Amoretti N, Bailet C, et al. Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer. 2007;110:2331–8.CrossRefPubMed Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Italiano A, Amoretti N, Bailet C, et al. Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer. 2007;110:2331–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Conessa C, Talfer S, Herve S, Chollet O, Poncet JL. Cephalic vein access for implantable venous access devices. Technique and long-term follow-up. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2002;123:143–8. Conessa C, Talfer S, Herve S, Chollet O, Poncet JL. Cephalic vein access for implantable venous access devices. Technique and long-term follow-up. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2002;123:143–8.
6.
go back to reference Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Nomura A, Itami A, Okabe H, Sato S, et al. Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:349–54.CrossRefPubMed Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Nomura A, Itami A, Okabe H, Sato S, et al. Long-term outcomes of peripheral arm ports implanted in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:349–54.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Kelly H, Goldberg RM. Systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: current options, current evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4553–60.CrossRefPubMed Kelly H, Goldberg RM. Systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: current options, current evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4553–60.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2001;24:180–4.CrossRefPubMed Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2001;24:180–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Mirza B, Vanek VW, Kupensky DT. Pinch-off syndrome: case report and collective review of the literature. Am Surg. 2004;70:635–44.PubMed Mirza B, Vanek VW, Kupensky DT. Pinch-off syndrome: case report and collective review of the literature. Am Surg. 2004;70:635–44.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Akahane A, Sone M, Ehara S, Kato K, Tanaka R, Nakasato T. Subclavian vein versus arm vein for totally implantable central venous port for patients with head and neck cancer: a retrospective comparative analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:1222–9.CrossRefPubMed Akahane A, Sone M, Ehara S, Kato K, Tanaka R, Nakasato T. Subclavian vein versus arm vein for totally implantable central venous port for patients with head and neck cancer: a retrospective comparative analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:1222–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM, Siegel RL, Biswal R, Gribbin CE, et al. Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2000;23:187–93.CrossRefPubMed Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM, Siegel RL, Biswal R, Gribbin CE, et al. Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2000;23:187–93.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Sutherland DE, Weitz IC, Liebman HA. Thromboembolic complications of cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Am J Hematol. 2003;72:43–52.CrossRefPubMed Sutherland DE, Weitz IC, Liebman HA. Thromboembolic complications of cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Am J Hematol. 2003;72:43–52.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR, Kiechle-Bahat M, Rody A, Loibl S, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:9–15.CrossRefPubMed Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR, Kiechle-Bahat M, Rody A, Loibl S, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:9–15.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R. Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5-year single-institution retrospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13:179–84.CrossRefPubMed Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R. Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5-year single-institution retrospective study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13:179–84.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Goltz JP, Petritsch B, Kirchner J, Hahn D, Kickuth R. Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:505–10.CrossRefPubMed Goltz JP, Petritsch B, Kirchner J, Hahn D, Kickuth R. Percutaneous image-guided implantation of totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm or the chest? A patients' point of view. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:505–10.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients
Authors
Yanhong Li
Yonghua Cai
Xiaoqin Gan
Xinmei Ye
Jiayu Ling
Liang Kang
Junwen Ye
Xingwei Zhang
Jianwei Zhang
Yue Cai
Huabin Hu
Meijin Huang
Yanhong Deng
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1002-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2016 Go to the issue