Skip to main content
Top
Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 2/2010

01-04-2010 | Letter

Failure of Minimally Invasive Arm Port Retrieval Caused by Post-Thrombotic Adhesions of the Port Catheter

Authors: Jan Peter Goltz, Richard Kellersmann, Christoph Bühler, Christian Oliver Ritter, Dietbert Hahn, Ralph Kickuth

Published in: CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Excerpt

Peripherally placed venous arm ports are used for patients who need temporary central venous access, e.g., chemotherapy or artificial nourishment [1]. Complications during or after port implantation include accidental arterial puncture, seroma, hematoma, infection, sepsis, thrombosis, cardiac arrhythmia, and catheter dislocation, disconnection, occlusion, rupture, and dysfunction [25]. If the device is no longer needed, it can be relatively easily removed with the patient under local anaesthesia. However, the clinical literature on port retrieval failure is largely incomplete, with only one recent study in which reasons for and complications during removal of pectorally placed port devices were evaluated [6]. We recently experienced the uncommon case of interventional port-removal failure 4 years after implantation because of post-thrombotic adhesions. This rare case therefore highlights the problems encountered during an attempt at minimally invasive retrieval and the necessity for a surgical approach. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM, Siegel RL, Biswal R, Gribbin CE et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMed Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM, Siegel RL, Biswal R, Gribbin CE et al (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:187–193CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K, Jacquet J, McDade A, Boyer M et al (2004) 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 91:1045–1049PubMed Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K, Jacquet J, McDade A, Boyer M et al (2004) 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 91:1045–1049PubMed
3.
go back to reference Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3:684–692CrossRefPubMed Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3:684–692CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:180–184CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Bailet C, Macchiavello JC, Namer M et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P, Bailet C, Macchiavello JC, Namer M et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Fischer L, Knebel P, Schroder S, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Hennes R et al (2008) Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1124–1129CrossRefPubMed Fischer L, Knebel P, Schroder S, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Hennes R et al (2008) Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1124–1129CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Jordan K, Behlendorf T, Surov A, Kegel T, Maher G, Wolf HH (2008) Venous access ports: frequency and management of complications in oncology patients. Onkologie 31:404–410CrossRefPubMed Jordan K, Behlendorf T, Surov A, Kegel T, Maher G, Wolf HH (2008) Venous access ports: frequency and management of complications in oncology patients. Onkologie 31:404–410CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R (2002) 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 13:179–184CrossRefPubMed Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R (2002) 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 13:179–184CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Failure of Minimally Invasive Arm Port Retrieval Caused by Post-Thrombotic Adhesions of the Port Catheter
Authors
Jan Peter Goltz
Richard Kellersmann
Christoph Bühler
Christian Oliver Ritter
Dietbert Hahn
Ralph Kickuth
Publication date
01-04-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 0174-1551
Electronic ISSN: 1432-086X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9810-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology 2/2010 Go to the issue