Dergiler / Turkish journal of vascular surgery / 2021 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2

An evaluation of the long-term complications associated with totally implantable venous access in oncology patients

Sayfa
127–132
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Even if complications develop, they can be usually successfully treated in most cases.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine long-term complications developing in venous port catheters inserted in oncological patients.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Patients and methods: A total of 205 oncology patients (124 males, 81 females; mean age: 50.1±22.3 years; range, 6 months to 90 years) in whom vascular port catheters were inserted between March 2015 and April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Even if complications develop, they can be usually successfully treated in most cases.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine long-term complications developing in venous port catheters inserted in oncological patients. Patients and methods: A total of 205 oncology patients (124 males, 81 females; mean age: 50.1±22.3 years; range, 6 months to 90 years) in whom vascular port catheters were inserted between March 2015 and April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The first preference for port catheter application was the right internal jugular vein. If failed, the contralateral internal jugular vein was used. The procedure was carried out in the operating room with ultrasound (US) guidance under general anesthesia. All patients were evaluated in terms of pneumothorax, catheter orientation, and kinking and malposition after the procedure. Results: A total 219 vascular ports were inserted in 205 patients. The indication for port catheter insertion was the receipt of long-term chemotherapy. Catheters were changed in four patients due to infection and in five patients due to catheter migration. The sites of catheter migration were the right atrium in two, the right ventricle in one, the main pulmonary artery in one, and the right pulmonary artery in one patient. Conclusion: Port catheter insertion under US guidance is a well-designed procedure which can be performed with low complication rates by an experienced surgeon in an aseptic environment. Even if complications develop, they can be usually successfully treated in most cases.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ACIPAYAM, A., EROĞLU, E. (2021). An evaluation of the long-term complications associated with totally implantable venous access in oncology patients. Turkish journal of vascular surgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2, 127–132. https://ajindex.com/articles/399290

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Arnaldi P, Goldhirsch A, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001;92:1204-12
  2. Kutun S, Ulucanlar H, Ağaç A, Demir A, Çetin A. Non-complicated central venous port catheter among 21 years without examination: Case report. Turk J Vasc Surg 2007;16:31-4
  3. Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisani Ceretti A, Cordovana A, Pagani M, Farina G, et al. Complications of subcutaneous infusion port in the general oncology population. Oncology 1999;56:97-102
  4. Kim DH, Ryu DY, Jung HJ, Lee SS. Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion. Exp Ther Med 2019;17:2013-8
  5. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, Liepman M, Doan K, Cozzi E. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982;92:706-12
  6. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1123-33
  7. Cimochowski GE, Worley E, Rutherford WE, Sartain J, Blondin J, Harter H. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron 1990;54:154-61
  8. Araújo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, et al. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34:222-6
  9. Teichgräber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA. Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108:147-53
  10. Wiegering V, Schmid S, Andres O, Wirth C, Wiegering A, Meyer T, et al. Thrombosis as a complication of central venous access in pediatric patients with malignancies: a 5-year single-center experience. BMC Hematol 2014;14:18
  11. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P, Kibbler C, et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol 2007;29:261-78
  12. Almhanna K, Pelley RJ, Thomas Budd G, Davidson J, Moore HC. Subcutaneous implantable venous access device erosion through the skin in patients treated with antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy: a case series. Anticancer Drugs 2008;19:217-9
  13. Lee AY. Cancer and thromboembolic disease: pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev 2002;28:137-40
  14. Shah M, Patni S, Bagarahatta R. Spontaneous chemoport fracture and cardiac