Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Inversion (“flipping”) Rates Among Different Port Designs: A Single-Center Experience

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare incidence of port inversion among different types of implantable venous access devices.

Materials and Methods

Records of patients who underwent imaging-guided subcutaneous port placement without port fixation between July 2001 and April 2015 were reviewed with use of a quality assurance database. 1930 patients with complete follow-up (death or explant) were included in the study. Collected data included date and indication for port placement, port type, venous access site, immediate and long-term complications, indication for removal, and total number of catheter days. BMI of patients with inverted ports was also calculated.

Results

Port inversion within the pocket was observed in 18 patients (0.9%) including 7/82 (9%) of Dignity ports, 4/126 (3%) of Vaxcel plastic arm ports, 3/142 (2%) of Smartports, 2/100 (2%) of Powerports, 1/14 (7%) of Vaccess ports, and 1/1421 (0.07%) of Vortex LP ports. Among these designs, the inversion rate was significantly lower in Vortex LP ports (0.1%) (P < 0.05). There was a trend toward higher inversion rate of Dignity ports, which have a rectangular design with a relatively narrow base. Mean dwell in inverted ports was 114 days (7–580).

Conclusion

The incidence of port inversion without suture fixation of the port base to the pocket is extremely low. The present study shows differences in inversion incidence based on port design.

Level of Evidence: Case Series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, et al. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery. 1982;92:706–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walser EM. Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(4):751–64. doi:10.1007/s00270-011-0271-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Viale PH. Complications associated with implantable access devices in the patient with cancer. J Infus Nurs. 2003;26:97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ryder MA. Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 1995;4:395–427.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Granziera E, Scarpa M, Ciccarese A, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices: retrospective analysis of different insertion techniques and predictors of complications in 796 devices implanted in a single institution. BMC Surg. 2014;14(1):27. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-14-27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. McNulty NJ, Perrich KD, Silas AM, Linville RM, Forauer AR. Implantable subcutaneous venous access devices: is port fixation necessary? A review of 534 cases. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2010;33(4):751–5. doi:10.1007/s00270-009-9758-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Costa BR, Dickey K, Greenwood L. A practical approach for repositioning flipped venous access ports. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11:213–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(2):179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA. Society of interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:S199–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gonda SJ, Li R. Principles of subcutaneous port placement. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;14(4):198–203. doi:10.1053/j.tvir.2011.05.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sanchez LY, Galbis Caravajal JM, Fuster Diana CA, et al. Protocol for the implantation of a venous access device (Port-A-Cath system). The complications and solutions found in 560 cases. Clin Transl Oncol. 2006;8:735–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Forauer AR, Chen Y, Parks R. A case of posttraumatic Twiddler’s syndrome. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16:562–3. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000151926.53432.EF.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cil BE, Canyigit M, Peynircioglu B, et al. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2006;12:93–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, et al. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2001;24:180–4. doi:10.1007/s002700001721.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Vahid Etezadi & Scott O. Trerotola

  2. University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S. Greene Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Vahid Etezadi

Authors
  1. Vahid Etezadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott O. Trerotola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott O. Trerotola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Trerotola, who is a consultant for B. Braun, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Lutonix, Cook, W.L. Gore, MedComp, and Teleflex, conducts research with Vascular Pathways and receives royalties from Cook and Teleflex. Dr Etezadi has nothing to disclose.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Due to its retrospective nature, consent waiver for the study was provided by the IRB. Informed consent for port placement was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etezadi, V., Trerotola, S.O. Comparison of Inversion (“flipping”) Rates Among Different Port Designs: A Single-Center Experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40, 553–559 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1546-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1546-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation