Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2011

01-02-2011 | Breast Oncology

Central Venous Port Placement: A Comparison of Axillary Versus Anterior Chest Wall Placement

Authors: Ivanesa Pardo, MD, Erika L. Rager, MD, Monet W. Bowling, MD, Alyssa Fajardo, MD, Susan Clare, MD, Robert Goulet Jr., MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To compare morbidity in patients with surgically implanted central venous ports that were placed in the subcutaneous tissues of the mid axillary line at the anterior border of the latissimus muscle (group A) versus the anterior chest wall (group C).

Methods

Between 2003 and 2007, a total of 183 patients with breast cancer were taken to the operating room for central venous port placement for delivery of chemotherapy. Port location was determined by patient and surgeon preference. Patient demographics were collected, and complications were evaluated by electronic medical record review. Complications identified included infection, thrombosis, port problems, and catheter problems. Basic descriptive statistics were generated. Patients with axillary ports were then compared to those with chest wall ports by appropriate t-tests or χ2 tests.

Results

During this period, 137 (75%) of 183 ports were placed in the axillary position. The complication rate was 10% (9% in group A vs. 13% in group C). There were 14 catheter-related complications and 5 port-related complications. There was no statistically significant difference in complications between the two groups (P = 0.45). Patients with axillary ports weighed less (mean 75.8 kg in group A vs. 84.9 kg in group C) and were more likely to have catheters placed in the internal jugular vein (82% in group A vs. 56% in group C).

Conclusions

There is no difference in rate or type of complications between axillary and chest wall port location. Subcutaneous ports can safely be placed in the mid axillary line. Axillary ports spare the patient the negative cosmetic outcomes of chest wall ports.
Literature
1.
Biffi R, Corrado F, de Braud F, et al. Long-term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:1190–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:767–73.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hartkamp A, van Boxtel AJ, Zonnenberg BA, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices: evaluation of complications and a prospective comparative study of two different port systems. Neth J Med. 2000;57:215–23.CrossRefPubMed
4.
al-Hathal M, Malmfors G, Garwicz S, et al. Port-A-Cath in children during long-term chemotherapy: complications and outcome. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 1989;6:17–22.CrossRefPubMed
5.
De Backer A, Vanhulle A, Otten J, et al. Totally implantable central venous access devices in pediatric oncology—our experience in 46 patients. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1993;3:101–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hall P, Cedermark B, Swedenborg J. Implantable catheter system for long-term intravenous chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 1989;41:39–41.CrossRefPubMed
7.
McKee J. Future dimensions in vascular access—peripheral implantable ports. J Intraven Nurs. 1991;14:387–93.PubMed
8.
Pettengell R, Davies AJ, Harvey VJ. Experience with an implantable venous access system for chemotherapy. NZ Med J. 1991;104(915):284–5.PubMed
9.
Repelaer van Driel OJ, Kuin CM, van de Velde CJ. Surgically implanted subcutaneous venous access devices in cancer patients. Neth J Surg. 1988;40:97–9.PubMed
10.
Rubie H, Juricic M, Claeyssens S, et al. Morbidity using subcutaneous ports and efficacy of vancomycin flushing in cancer. Arch Dis Child. 1995;72:325–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Strum S, McDermed J, Korn A, et al. Improved methods for venous access: the Port-A-Cath, a totally implanted catheter system. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:596–603.PubMed
12.
Winters V, Peters B, Coila S, et al. A trial with a new peripheral implanted vascular access device. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1990;17:891–6.PubMed
13.
Shen-Gunther J, Mannel RS, Walker JL, et al. Outpatient implantation of a central venous access system in gynecologic oncology patients. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:875–81.PubMed
14.
Ang P, Chia KH, Teoh MK, et al. Use of a peripherally implanted subcutaneous permanent central venous access device for chemotherapy—the Singapore General Hospital experience. Aust N Z J Med. 2000;30:470–4.
15.
Adler A, Yaniv I, Steinberg R, et al. Infectious complications of implantable ports and Hickman catheters in paediatric haematology-oncology patients. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62:358–65.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Loh AH, Chui CH, Loh AHP, et al. Port-A-Cath insertions in acute leukaemia and childhood malignancies. Asian J Surg. 2007;30:193–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Sotir MJ, Lewis C, Bisher EW, et al. Epidemiology of device-associated infections related to a long-term implantable vascular access device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:187–91.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Chang L, Tsai JS, Huang SJ, et al. Evaluation of infectious complications of the implantable venous access system in a general oncologic population. Am J Infect Control. 2003;31:34–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Peynircioglu B, Arslan EB, Cil BE, et al. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in patients with bilateral breast surgery. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30:405–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Central Venous Port Placement: A Comparison of Axillary Versus Anterior Chest Wall Placement
Authors
Ivanesa Pardo, MD
Erika L. Rager, MD
Monet W. Bowling, MD
Alyssa Fajardo, MD
Susan Clare, MD
Robert Goulet Jr., MD
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1353-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2011 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Precision Hepatic Arterial Irinotecan Therapy in the Treatment of Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocellular Carcinoma: Optimal Tolerance and Prolonged Overall Survival

Thoracic Oncology

Improved Outcomes in the Management of Esophageal Cancer with the Addition of Surgical Resection to Chemoradiation Therapy

Head and Neck Oncology

Feasibility of Preservation of the Submandibular Gland During Neck Dissection in Patients With Early-Stage Oral Cancer

Endocrine Tumors

Robotic-Assisted Resection of Adrenal Aldosteronoma

Breast Oncology

Resection Margins in Ultrasound-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP): Predictors of Recurrence and the Use of Systemic Therapy