Comparative study of porting complications by implantation under and on the pectoral muscle in cancer patients at Shahid Beheshti and Hazrat Masoumeh hospitals during the years 2010-2014 Comparative study of porting complications by implantation under and on the pectoral muscle in cancer patients
Iranian Journal of Pediatric Surgery,
Vol. 6 No. 2 (2020),
7 December 2020
,
Page 92-99
https://doi.org/10.22037/irjps.v6i2.31211
Abstract
Introduction: Porting is one of the invasive processes that is usually associated with significant complications in patients. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the effects of porting in two ways: implanted under the muscle and on the pectoralis muscle of cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, a comparison was made between patients whose ports were implanted under the muscle and patients whose ports were implanted on the pectoralis muscle. The level of significance was considered to be 0.05.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 17.83±19.1 months. 51.2% (42 patients) were boys and 48.8% (40 patients) were girls. Comparison of the average success (percentage) of the ports (P = 0.419), the incidence of infection (P = 0.241), the incidence of skin necrosis (P = 0.077) and the rate of displacement (P = 0.005). P) In patients between the two groups, there was no significant statistical difference in terms of port location.
Conclusion: The present study showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of successful porting and comparison of infection, skin necrosis and port displacement in the studied patients, despite the higher incidence of porting group effects on the pectoralis muscle compared to the sub muscular.
- Porting
- Complications
- Pectoral
- Cancer
How to Cite
References
Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R: Vascular access in oncology patients. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2008;58(6):323-46.
Niederhuber J, Ensminger W, Gyves J, et al: Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982;92(4):706-12.
Vescia S, Baumgärtner A, Jacobs V, et al: Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Annals of Oncology 2008;19(1):9-15.
Arzanian MT, Shamsian BS, Eshghi P, et al: The clinical application of port A Cath in the hematology-oncology patients. Scientific Journal of Iranian Blood Transfusion Organization 2015;12(1).
Torramade J, Cienfuegos J, Hernandez J, et al: The complications of central venous access systems: a study of 218 patients. The European journal of surgery= Acta chirurgica 1993;159(6-7):323-7.
Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, et al: Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(26):1735-8.
Teichgräber U, Gebauer B, Benter T, et al: Long-term central venous lines and their complications. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2004;176(7):944-52.
Ljung R: Central venous lines in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2003;9:88-93.
Burbridge B, Matte G, Roy H: Intravascular Contrast in Computed Tomography: Chemistry, Administration Strategies, and Venous Access Issues. Vascular Access 2013;7(3):9-14.
Gebauer B, Teichgräber U, Hothan T, et al: Contrast media pressure injection using a portal catheter system--results of an in vitro study. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2005;177(10):1417-23.
Lam S, Scannell R, Roessler D, et al: Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospital. Archives of internal medicine 1994;154(16):1833-7.
Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R: Risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with chest versus arm central venous subcutaneous port catheters: a 5-year single-institution retrospective study. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology 2002;13(2):179-84.
Yildizeli B, Lacin T, Batirel H, et al: Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. The journal of vascular access 2004;5(4):174-8.
Fallon SC, Larimer EL, Gwilliam NR, et al: Increased complication rates associated with Port-a-Cath placement in pediatric patients: location matters. J Pediatr Surg 2013;48:1263–1268.
Danno K, Ohnishi T, Watanabe A, et al: Complications associated with the placement of subcutaneous central venous access port devices: reasons for removal and complications observed. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2012;39(12):2404-6.
Schenck M, Schneider T, Rübben H, et al: Central venous port implantations via the cephalic vein applying an intravasal electrographic control of the catheter tip position: a single-center experience of 316 cases. World J Urol 2012;30(3):399-404.
Aribaş BK, Arda K, Aribaş O, et al: Comparison of subcutaneous central venous port via jugular and subclavian access in 347 patients at a single center. Exp Ther Med 2012;4(4):675-80.
Dehkhoda S, Arianpour N, Rafiei MR: Catheterization complications in referred for chemotherapy.Journal of Isfahan Medical School 2011;29(135): 426-432.
Schutz JC, Patel AA, Clark TW, et al: Relationship between chest port catheter tip position and port malfunction after interventional radiologic placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15(6):581-7.
- Abstract Viewed: 174 times
- PDF Downloaded: 176 times