Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was the analysis of the feasibility and complication rate of central venous port implantation with the surgical cut-down technique applying an intravasal electrographic control of the catheter tip position performed by urologists.

Patients and methods

In the time from December 1999 to November 2010, implantation of 324 subcutaneously implanted venous port systems (NuPort-System) has been performed in 316 patients, 221 men (mean age 59.5 years, range 11–87 years) and 95 women (mean age 57.6 years, range 7–85 years). Two hundred and fifty-nine (79.9%) port systems were placed under electrographic control of the catheter tip position. Duration of procedure, long-term device function, and complications such as infections, occlusions, dislocations, and thrombosis were all retrospectively measured and recorded until removal of the device, patient’s death or the last known recorded documentation.

Results

In total, 359 devices have been used in 348 surgical procedures, 324 implantations (90.25%), and 35 explantations (9.75%). Port systems were implanted using the cephalic vein in 275 patients (84.9%), and in 49 (15.1%), the subclavian vein was used for insertion of the catheter. Mean surgical implantation time was 38.8 min (15–85 min). The median follow-up was 490.6 days (range 2–2,568); 159,764 catheter days (mean, 234 days, range 2–2,604) were documented. Of 35 explanted devices, the explantation was necessary due to complications in 28 cases (8.6%) with infection n = 6 (1.9%, 0.037 per 1,000 catheter days), occlusion n = 8 (2.5%, 0.050 per 1,000 catheter days), dislocation n = 7 (2.2%, 0.044 per 1,000 catheter days), deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity n = 6 (1.9%, 0.037 per 1,000 catheter days), and clotting n = 1 (0.3%, 0.006 per 1,000 catheter days). Premature catheter removal (<30d post-operatively) was required in 6 patients (1.9%, 0.037 per 1,000 catheter days) due to complications: 3 catheter dislocations/malfunctions (0.9%, 0.019 per 1,000 catheter days), one port related infection, one pocket port infection, and one deep vein thrombosis of the upper extremity (0.3%, 0.006 per 1,000 catheter days).

Conclusions

The intra-atrial ECG techniques to judge correct tip positioning for central venous port implantations are simple and economical. The exact position can be determined intraoperatively. It can justify a delayed postoperative chest X-ray to confirm CVC line tip placement. Nevertheless, the procedure and handling of the device later on has to be performed with care in order to avoid infections and technical problems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schenck M, Jager T (2006) What is practically important when carrying out a chemotherapy? Urologe A 45(5):572, 574–576, 578–579. doi:10.1007/s00120-006-1045-3

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, Sanders JE, Stewart P, Thomas ED (1979) A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 148(6):871–875

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH (1973) A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136(4):602–606

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Torramade JR, Cienfuegos JA, Hernandez JL, Pardo F, Benito C, Gonzalez J, Balen E, de Villa V (1993) The complications of central venous access systems: a study of 218 patients. Eur J Surg 159(6–7):323–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Teichgraber UK, Gebauer B, Benter T, Wagner HJ (2003) Central venous access catheters: radiological management of complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 26(4):321–333

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bodner LJ, Nosher JL, Patel KM, Siegel RL, Biswal R, Gribbin CE, Tokarz R (2000) Peripheral venous access ports: outcomes analysis in 109 patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 23(3):187–193. doi:10.1007/s002700010041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 24(3):180–184. doi:10.1007/s002700001721

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1,500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22(1):12–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Teichgraber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN, Gebauer B (2011) Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 21(6):1224–1232. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-2045-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J, Kestenholz P, Breitenstein S, Imhof A, Renner C, Stenner-Liewen F, Pestalozzi BC (2008) Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology 74(3–4):237–244. doi:10.1159/000151393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brothers TE, Von Moll LK, Niederhuber JE, Roberts JA, Walker-Andrews S, Ensminger WD (1988) Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 166(4):295–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kock HJ, Krause U, Pietsch M, Rasfeld S, Walz MK (1996) Implantable catheter systems. Experiences with 1,000 patients with central venous ports. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 121(3):47–51. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1042970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrmann KA, Waggershauser T, Helmberger T, Heinemann V, Sittek H, Reiser M (1999) Percutaneous interventional radiologic implantation of intravenous port-catheter systems. Radiologe 39(9):777–782. doi:90390777.117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwarz RE, Groeger JS, Coit DG (1997) Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis. Cancer 79(8):1635–1640. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970415)79:8<1635:AID-CNCR30>3.0.CO;2-X

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leinung S, Wurl P, Anders K, Deckert F, Schonfelder M (2002) Port catheter fractures in 361 implanted port systems. Analysis of the causes–possible solutions–review of the literature. Chirurg 73(7):696–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Teichgraber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA (2011) Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108(9):147–153. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2011.0147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Charvat J, Linke Z, Horaekova M, Prausova J (2006) Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients: single center experience. Support Care Cancer 14(11):1162–1165. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0073-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen PT, Sung CS, Wang CC, Chan KH, Chang WK, Hsu WH (2007) Experience of anesthesiologists with percutaneous nonangiographic venous access. J Clin Anesth 19(8):609–615. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.06.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, Fahlke J, Peters B, Bischoff J, Costa SD (2009) An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(3):241–246. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Roller E, Ruzicka T, Schulte KW (2007) Subclavian thrombosis after port system implantation. Hautarzt 58(1):56–61. doi:10.1007/s00105-006-1098-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, Fazio N, de Braud F, Andreoni B, Goldhirsch A (2009) Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 20(5):935–940. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS, Wang WK, Kao CL, Lu MS, Wang CS (2009) Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 15(37):4709–4714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, Dias T, Fougo JL (2008) A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1,201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(2):222–226. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2007.04.003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hinman F (2007) Atlas urologischer Operationen im Kindes- und Jugendalter. Übersetzt und bearbeitet von Herbert Rübben. Springer, Heidelberg, s. S. 55–57

  25. de Gregorio MA, Miguelena JM, Fernandez JA et al (1996) Subcutaneous ports in the radiology suite: an effective and safe procedure for care in cancer patients. Eur Radiol 6:748–752

    Google Scholar 

  26. Poorter RL, Lauw FN, Bemelman WA et al (1996) Complications of an implantable venous access device (Port-a-Cath) during intermittent continuous infusion of chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 32A:2262–2266

    Google Scholar 

  27. Vardy J, Engelhardt K, Cox K et al (2004) 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 Cancer 91:1045–1049

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has direct or indirect financial incentive associated with publishing the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Urooncology, University of Essen Medical School, Hufelandstr. 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    Marcus Schenck, Tim Schneider, Herbert Rübben & Andreas Eisenhardt

  2. PURR, Urological Clinic Rhein-Ruhr, Mülheim, Germany

    Tim Schneider & Andreas Eisenhardt

Authors
  1. Marcus Schenck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herbert Rübben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Eisenhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Schenck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 30, 399–404 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0752-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0752-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation