Journals / Haseki Tıp Bülteni / 2019 / Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Two Different Central Venous Access Device Insertion Techniques: No Evil in Details

Santral Venöz Port Uygulamasında İki Tekniğin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
9–14
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Although image-guidedinsertion of subcutaneous chest ports has advantages over unguidedinsertion, the latter can be used in a selected group of patients inexperienced hands.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Central venous access devices (CVADs) have been used forprolonged infusion chemotherapy and have facilitated the problem ofvascular access.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aims of this study were to analyse the results andcomplications of two CVAD implantation techniques.Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 118 implantablevenous access devices inserted via the subclavian vein using twodifferent surgical techniques between January 2015 and June 2017in İstanbul Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of GeneralSurgery.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although image-guidedinsertion of subcutaneous chest ports has advantages over unguidedinsertion, the latter can be used in a selected group of patients inexperienced hands.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Central venous access devices (CVADs) have been used forprolonged infusion chemotherapy and have facilitated the problem ofvascular access. The aims of this study were to analyse the results andcomplications of two CVAD implantation techniques.Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 118 implantablevenous access devices inserted via the subclavian vein using twodifferent surgical techniques between January 2015 and June 2017in İstanbul Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of GeneralSurgery. While the devices were placed under fluoroscopic guidancein group 1, they were placed without fluoroscopy in group 2. Allprocedures were performed under sedation and local anesthesia. Alldevices were placed at the anterior chest wall over the pectoralis fascia.Outcome and complications were followed and recorded elaborately.Results: A total of 118 venous access devices were implanted. Duringfollow-up, a total of eight complications were observed. Pneumothoraxwas observed in five, wound infection in two and catheter fracturewas observed in one patient. There was no statistically significantdifference in complications between the two groups.Conclusion: CVADs increase quality of life of patients with oncologicdiseases during chemotherapy. Common periprocedural complicationsof CVADs are pneumothorax, wound infection and catheter occlusion.In critical patients, the use of fluoroscopy may be helpful in reducingcomplications. However, since fluoroscopy increases costs and requiresexperience, CVAD insertion under fluoroscopy guidance may notalways be possible. There is also a risk of radiation exposure whenusing fluoroscopy. In regard to comparison of the two techniques,fluoroscopy guidance did not alter the results and its superiorityover the other technique was not observed. Although image-guidedinsertion of subcutaneous chest ports has advantages over unguidedinsertion, the latter can be used in a selected group of patients inexperienced hands.

Özet

Amaç: Santal venöz katater uzun süreli kemoterapi infüzyonu gereken ve damar yolu problemi olan hastalarda kullanılır. Bu çalışmada iki farklı teknik kullanılarak uygulanan santal venöz port işlemlerinin sonuçları ve komplikasyonları karşılaştırıldı. Yöntemler: Ocak 2015 ve Haziran 2017 tarihleri arasında subklavian vene iki farklı teknikle uygulanan santral venöz port işlemi uygulanan 118 olgu retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. Grup 1 floroskopi altında işlem yapılan olgulardan, grup 2 ise floroskopi kullanılmadan port takılan olgulardan oluşuyordu. Tüm işlemler sedasyon ve lokal anestezi altında uygulandı. Tüm portlar göğüs ön duvarında pectoral kasın fasyası üzerine yerleştirildi. Sonuçlar ve komplikasyonlar değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplam 118 port işlemi uygulandı. Bu olguların takiplerinde sekiz komplikasyon izlendi. Beş olguda pnömotoraks, iki olguda yara yerinde enfeksiyon, bir olguda ise katater kırılması görüldü. İstatistiksel olarak komplikasyon açısından her iki grup arasında anlamlı farlılık saptanmadı. Sonuç: Santral venöz portlar kemoterapi süresince onkolojik hastaların yaşam kalitelerini yükseltir. Santal venöz portların yaygın görülen komplikasyonlarının başında pnömotoraks, yara yeri enfeksiyonu ve katater tıkanmasıdır. Kritik hastalarda floroskopi kullanılması bu komplikasyonların azaltılmasında yardımcı olabilir. Bununla birlikte, bu tekniklerin floroskopi altında kullanımı her zaman mümkün olmayabilir, maliyetleri artırabilir ve deneyim gerektirir. Floroskopi kullanıldığında radyasyona maruz kalma riski de vardır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre floroskopi kullanılması sonuçları değiştirmedi ve diğer gruba göre üstünlüğü gösterilemedi. Floroskopi altında santral venöz port takılması işleme kılavuzluk açısından avantajlı olmakla birlikte floroskopi kullanılmadan da deneyimli ellerde düşük komplikasyon oranlarıyla bu işlem uygulanabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DİNÇER, M., HUT, A., ÇITLAK, G., GÜR, Ü., AKINCI, M., KOCAKUŞAK, A. (2022). Comparison of Two Different Central Venous Access Device Insertion Techniques: No Evil in Details. Haseki Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 1, 9–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/535085

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 2008;19:9-15.
  2. Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisani Ceretti A, et al. Complications of Subcutaneous Infusion Port in the General Oncology Population. Oncology 1999;56:97-102.
  3. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al; French Catheter Study Group in Intensive Care. Complications of Femoral and Subclavian Venous Catheterization in Critically Ill Patients A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2001;286:700-7.
  4. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 2001;136:1050-3.
  5. Di Carlo I, Pulvirenti E, Mannino M, Toro A. Increased use of percutaneous technique for totally implantable venous access devices. Is it real progress? A 27-year comprehensive review on early complications. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1649-56.
  6. Frykholm P, Pikwer A, Hammarskjold F, et al. Clinical guidelines on central venous catheterisation. Swedish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2014;58:508-24.
  7. Mueller BU, Skelton J, Callender DP, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the infectious and noninfectious complications of an externalized catheter versus a subcutaneously implanted device in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1943-8.
  8. Gleeson NC, Fiorica JV, Mark JE, et al. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:372- 6. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993;15119:1168-74.
  9. Eastridge BJ, Lefor AT. Complications of indwelling venous access devices in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:233-8.
  10. Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA. Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3276-81.
  11. Yazici N, Akyuz C, Yalcin B, Varan A, Kutluk T, Buyukpamukcu M. Infectious complications and conservative treatment of totally implantable venous access devices in children with cancer. Turk J Pediatr 2013;55:164-71.
  12. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 1998;22:12-6.
  13. Bassi KK, Giri AK, Pattanayak M, Abraham S