Abstract
Background
Ultrasound (USG) guidance is superior to blind and open cut-down techniques for accurate puncture of the internal jugular vein (IJV) or subclavian vein, but it increases the cost and duration of the procedure. Here, we report our experience with the reliability and consistency of anatomic landmark-guided technique for Central Venous Access Device (CVAD) insertion in a low-resource setting.
Material and methods
A retrospective analysis of the prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing CVAD insertion through one of the jugular veins was performed. Central venous access was achieved using a standardized anatomic insertion landmark (apex of Sedillot’s triangle). Ultrasonography (USG) and/or fluoroscopy assistance was taken as and when required.
Results
Over 12 months (October 2021 to September 2022), a total of 208 patients underwent CVAD insertion. Central venous access was successfully achieved using anatomic landmark-guided technique in all but 14 patients (6.7%), in whom USG guidance or C-arm was used. Eleven out of 14 patients who needed guidance for CVAD insertion had body mass index (BMI) of more than 25, one had thyromegaly while the remaining two had an arterial puncture during cannulation. CVAD insertion-related complications included deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in five, extravasation of chemotherapeutic agent in one, spontaneous extrusion related to a fall in one, and persistent withdrawal-related occlusion in seven patients.
Conclusion
Anatomical landmark-guided technique of CVAD insertion is safe and reliable, and can reduce the need for USG/C-arm in 93% of the patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tabatabaie O, Kasumova GG, Kent TS, Eskander MF, Fadayomi AB, Ng SC et al (2017) Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis after port insertion: what are the risk factors? Surgery 162(2):437–444
Machat S, Eisenhuber E, Pfarl G, Stübler J, Koelblinger C, Zacherl J et al (2019) Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 10(1):86
Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, Liepman M, Doan K, Cozzi E (1982) Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 92(4):706–712
Tabatabaie O, Kasumova GG, Eskander MF, Critchlow JF, Tawa NE, Tseng JF (2017) Totally implantable venous access devices: a review of complications and management strategies. Am J Clin Oncol 40(1):94–105
Ahn SJ, Kim HC, Chung JW, An SB, Yin YH, Jae HJ et al (2012) Ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided placement of central venous ports via internal jugular vein: retrospective analysis of 1254 port implantations at a single center. Korean J Radiol 13(3):314–323
Yaacob Y, Nguyen DV, Mohamed Z, Ralib AR, Zakaria R, Muda S (2013) Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologists: a single-center experience on periprocedural complications. Indian J Radiol Imaging 23(2):121–125
Dede D, Akmangit I, Yildirim ZN, Sanverdi E, Sayin B (2008) Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(12):1340–1343
Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD (2009) Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 198(6):829–833
Kusminsky RE (2007) Complications of central venous catheterization. J Am Coll Surg 204(4):681–696
Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3(11):684–692
Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, Wagner HJ (2009) Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation–high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 69(3):517–522
Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Arnaldi P, Goldhirsch A et al (2001) A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 92(5):1204–1212
Walser EM (2012) Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35(4):751–764
Teichgraber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA (2011) Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108(9):147–153
Harish K (2014) Chemoport-skin erosion: our experience. Int J Angiol 23(3):215–216
Jan HC, Chou SJ, Chen TH, Lee CI, Chen TK, Lou MA (2012) Management and prevention of complications of subcutaneous intravenous infusion port. Surg Oncol 21(1):7–13
Cil BE, Canyiğit M, Peynircioğlu B, Hazirolan T, Carkaci S, Cekirge S et al (2006) Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 12(2):93–98
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 119905 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kaul, P., Tiwari, A.R., Kaul, P. et al. Revisiting the Anatomical Landmark-Guided Central Venous Access Device Insertion: A Retrospective Cohort Study. World J Surg 47, 2562–2567 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07088-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07088-0