Totally implantable venous access ports by cephalic vein cut-down for patients receiving chemotherapy

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Sofiéne Ayadi
Rchid Ksantini
Houcine Maghrebi
Amine Daghfous
Mona Ayadi
Fadhel Fteriche
Haikel Bedioui
Faouzi Chebbi
Adel Amous
Mohamed Jouini
Montassar Kacem
Amel Mezlini
Zoubeir Ben Safta

Abstract

Background: The use of an implantable room has become indispensable in the clinical practice for the cancer patients. The increasing use of these devices was associated with a greater incidence of complications.
Aim: To verify the feasibility of the cephalic vein cut-down technique for placement of venous access devices.
Methods: A prospective study of 58 port placements was performed at our department of general surgery. The surveillance of devices was collectively insured by the operator and by the oncologists.
Results: The indication for implantation was the infusion of intravenous chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer in 55.1% cases and breast cancer in 27.5%. The specific complication rate was 7%. The cephalic vein cut-down approach was used successful in 45 (77.5%) patients. When the cephalic vein could not be used, a percutaneous technique was employed using the subclavian vein in 22.4% of the patients.
Conclusion: Cephalic vein cut-down technique should be considered a safe and feasible approach for placement of venous access devices.

Keywords:

Implantable venous access devices; Cephalic vein cut-down; chemotherapy

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, Liepman M, Cozzi RN. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery. 1982; 92: 706-711.
  2. Boulétreau P, Chassard D. Alimentation entérale précoce en chirurgie digestive. MAPAR Communications scientifiques 1996. Bruno Dartayet, Paris, 521-9.
  3. Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J, et al. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology. 2008; 74: 237-44.
  4. Groegger J, Lucas A, Thaler H, Brown A, Kiehn T, Amstrong B. Infections morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 1168-74.
  5. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009 ; 35 :241-6.
  6. Hamilton HC, Foxcroft DR. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection in patients requiring long-term intravenous therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; 3:CD004084.
  7. Brothers T, Moll L, Niederhuber J, et al. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988; 166: 295-301.
  8. Cappacioli L, Nistri M, Distante V, Rontini M, Manetti A, Stecco A. Insertion and management of long-term central venous device role of radiologic imaging techniques. Radiol Med. 1998; 96: 369-74.
  9. D'Angelo FA, Ramacciato G, Aurello P, et al. Prospective randomized study of cephalic vein cut-down versus subclavian vein puncture technique in the implantation of subcutaneous venous access devices. Chir Ital. 2002; 54: 495-500.
  10. La freniere R. Indwelling subclavian catheters and a visit with the « pinched-off sign ». J Surg Oncol. 1991 ; 47 : 261-4.
  11. Conessa Cl; Talfer S; Herve S; Chollet O. Veine céphalique et chambre à cathéter implantable. Technique et suivi à long terme. Revue de laryngologie, d'otologie et de rhinologie. 2002 ; 123 : 143-48.
  12. Le Saout J, Vallee B, Person H, Doutriaux M, Blanc J, Huu N. Bases anatomiques de l'utilisation chirurgicale de la veine céphalique. J Chir. 1983; 120: 131-4.
  13. Chuter T, Starker PM. Placement of Hickman-Broviac catheters in the cephalic vein. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988; 166: 163-4.