The purpose of this study is to present the characteristic radiologic features of common and uncommon complications in totally implantable central venous ports.
Material and Methods
The authors reviewed 138 implantations of central venous ports in oncologic patients during an 18-month period and present the characteristic imaging features of the complications detected.
Results
All chest ports were placed via the internal jugular vein using both fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance. The technical success rate was 99.3% (137/138). All catheter or port-related complications were retrospectively assessed. Sixteen complications were detected during the follow-up period, and catheter removal was required in 10 patients.
Conclusions
Image-guided central venous port catheter implantation is a very safe procedure with a low rate of complications. The typical imaging features of common and uncommon complications are very helpful in establishing the correct diagnosis and thus tailoring the appropriate therapy.
MarcyP.Y., MagneN., CastadotP.. 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.2005; 92: 61–67.
2.
GebauerB., El-SheikM., VogtM.. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation-high success and low complication rate.Eur J Radiol.2009; 69: 517–522.
3.
CilB.E., CanyigitM., PeynirciogluB.. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience.Diagn Interv Radiol.2006; 12: 93–98.
4.
OrsiF., GrassoR.F., ArnaldiP.. Ultrasound guided versus direct vein puncture in central venous port placement.J Vasc Access2000; 1: 73–77.
5.
DedeD., AkmangitI., YildirimZ.N., SanverdiE., SayinB.Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports.Eur J Surg Oncol.2008; 34: 1340–1343.
6.
IgnatovA., HoffmanO., SmithB.. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction.Eur J Surg Oncol.2009; 35: 241–246.
7.
FischerL., KnebelP., SchröderS.. Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients.Ann Surg Oncol.2008; 15: 1124–1129.
8.
LeeJ.H., KimY.B., LeeM.K.. Catastrophic hemothorax on the contralateral side of the insertion of an implantable subclavian venous access device and the ipsilateral side of the removal of the infected port -A case report-.Korean J Anesthesiol.2010; 59: 214–219.
9.
Teichgrä berU.K., GebauerB., BenterT.. Long-term central venous lines and their complications.Rofo2004; 176: 944–992.
10.
EnerR.A., MeglahteryS.B., StylerM.Extravasation of systemic hemato-oncological therapies.Ann Oncol.2004; 15: 858–862.
11.
KreisH., LoehbergC.R., LuxM.P.. Patients' attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies.Eur J Surg Oncol.2007; 33: 39–43.
12.
YildizeliB., LacinT., BatirelH.F.. Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports.J Vasc Access2004; 5: 174–178.
13.
ZhangQ., JiaoL., ZhouH.Comparison of implantable central venous ports with catheter insertion via external jugular cut down and subclavian puncture in children: single center experience.Pediatr Surg Int.2009; 25: 499–501.
14.
PaolettiF., RipaniU., AntonelliM., NicolettaG.Central venous catheters. Observations on the implantation technique and its complications.Minerva Anestesiol.2005; 71: 555–560.
15.
LorchH., ZwaanM., KagelC.. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2001; 24: 180–184.
16.
GoltzJ.P., SchollA., RitterC.O.. Peripherally Placed Totally Implantable Venous-access Port Systems of the Forearm: Clinical Experience in 763 Consecutive Patients.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2010; 33: 1159–1167.
17.
CilB.E.Radiological placement of chest ports in pediatric oncology patients.Eur Radiol.2004; 14: 2015–2019.
18.
VardyJ., EngelhardtK., CoxK.. 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 Cancer2004; 91: 1045–1049.
19.
InabaY., YamauraH., SatoY.. Central venous access port-related complications in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.Jpn J Clin Oncol.2007; 37: 951–954.
20.
YipD., FunakiB.Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients.Acta Radiol.2002; 43: 371–375.
21.
McNultyN.J., PerrichK.D., SilasA.M., LinvilleR.M., ForauerA.R.Implantable subcutaneous venous access devices: is port fixation necessary? A review of 534 cases.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol.2010; 33: 751–755.
22.
SutherlandD.E., WeitzI.C., LiebmanH.A.Thromboembolic complications of cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment.Am J Hematol.2003; 72: 43–52.
23.
KurulS., SaipP., AydinT.Totally implantable venousaccess ports: local problems and extravasation injury.Lancet Oncol.2002; 3: 684–692.
VersoM., AgnelliG.Venous thromboembolism associated with long term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients.J Clin Oncol.2003; 21: 3665–3675.
26.
VoogE., LazardE., JuhelL.Prophylaxis of thrombosis induced by chemotherapy or central venous catheters.Presse Med.2007; 36: 225–234.
27.
VesciaS., BaumgartnerA.K., JacobsV.R.. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence.Ann Oncol.2008; 19: 9–15.
SamarasP., DoldS., BraunJ.. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients.Oncology2008; 74: 237–244.
30.
HallK., FarrB.Diagnosis and management of long-term central venous catheter infections.J Vasc Interv Radiol.2004; 15: 327–334.
