An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2005.09.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim

The aim of the present study was to report our experience of totally implantable central venous access devices (TICVAD) implantation using two techniques and attempt to define the better technique.

Materials and methods

From January 1998 to September 2003, 1131 patients were reviewed and divided into two groups with implantation by cephalic vein cut-down (group A) done by general surgeons and subclavian vein puncture with the Seldinger technique (group B) done by vascular surgeons. The operative time, early and late complications of these two groups were compared. Data were analysed by Student's t-test.

Results

The average of operative time was 43 min in group A (35—70 min) and 40 min in group B (35—60 min) (P>0.05). No post-operative pneumothorax, hemothorax and fragmentation occurred in group A; the incidence of peri-operative complication was higher in group B. The overall and early complications of group A were significantly lower than that of group B (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

This retrospective study showed that the cephalic vein cut-down approach for TICVAD placement avoided the risks of pneumothorax, hemothorax and catheter fragmentation.

Introduction

Totally implantable central venous access devices (TICVAD) represent obvious problems in the administration of chemotherapy because of venous irritation and the need for multiple venipunctures. TICVAD is an important benefit for patients who need to receive chemotherapy. TICVAD are generally placed by the percutaneous subclavian vein approach. The cephalic vein cut-down approach is used infrequently in clinical practice due to technical limitation and a wide range of failure rates (8—62%) in the literature.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

But complications are frequently observed in the percutaneous subclavian vein approach such as pneumothorax and arterial puncture. The major advantages of the cephalic vein cut-down approach compared to the percutaneous subclavian vein approach is the elimination of the risks of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and injury to the great vessels9 and direct observation of the adequacy of the vein. But comparative studies of the two methods is lacking. The aim of the present study was to analyse our experience of TICVAD implantation by two techniques to evaluate and determine which had lowest risk of technical problems.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

From January 1998 to September 2003, we reviewed 1131 patients whom had received TICVAD implantation for chemotherapy by either technique. In 95.8% of the patients the tumours were solid and 4.2% had hematological diseases. Patients were divided into two groups, implantation of the catheter by cephalic vein cut-down (group A) by general surgeons and subclavian vein puncture with the Seldinger technique (group B) by vascular surgeons (Table 1). All implantations were performed by four surgeons

Statistical analysis

The software program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows (version 8.0) was utilized to analyse the data by the Student's t-test. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In this retrospective study, the demographic data of both groups of patients are summarized in Table 1. Based on the Independent t-test, there were no statistically significant differences within the types of malignancy for either technique. Mean operative time was 43 min in group A (25—70 min) and 40 min in group B (25—60 min) (P>0.05). The failure rate of the cephalic vein cut-down was 12% (64/533). The cephalic vein was absent in 21 patients, too small in 39 patients, and iatrogenic injury in

Discussion

TICVAD have been widely used by the oncologists. They achieve safe and less painful vascular access, facilitate treatment of many medical disorders, and improve patients' quality of life by giving them unrestricted mobility and freedom in their activities. These devices can be implanted through either a surgical or percutaneous procedure. The cephalic vein cut-down is used infrequently due to the reported high failure rate and the requirement for surgical expertise. Two earlier cadaver-based

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (49)

  • Iatrogenic median nerve injury as a result of venous cut down procedure: A rare case report

    2020, International Journal of Surgery Case Reports
    Citation Excerpt :

    The usual reported complications are cellulitis, hematoma, phlebitis, perforation of the posterior wall of the vein, venous thrombosis and neuro-vascular injury [3,4]. Chang et al., in a retrospective study on implantable venous devices, have reported the rate of complications of cephalic vein cut down to be 11% [9]. To the best of our knowledge, there are only two isolated cases in the literature, reported in 1989 [10] and 2008 [11], mentioning injury to the ulnar nerve caused during a cut down procedure on the basilic vein, with no documented case reports of median nerve injury following cut down procedure on the basilic vein.

  • Superior Vena Cava Port Catheter Tip Confirmation: Quantified Formula for Intravascular Catheter Length versus Anatomic Landmark Reference

    2019, Annals of Vascular Surgery
    Citation Excerpt :

    In this study, vessel cutdown and real-time approach for internal jugular vein at a high neck site were utilized for intravenous port implantation. Subclavian vein puncture was abandoned because of the possibility of hemothorax,19–23 pinch-off syndrome,24–26 and pneumothorax.27,28,37 We also avoided lower neck puncture for the internal jugular vein because the actual entry site of the puncture needle was within the thoracic inlet.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text