Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Subclavian vein puncture vs. surgical cut-down to the cephalic vein for insertion of totally implantable venous access ports

  • Original Scientific Paper
  • Published:
European Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Background

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIAP) are commonly used in oncology, but which insertion modality should be preferred is still discussed controversially. We present a retrospective survey of the two main approaches for central venous cannulation from a single surgical department.

Methods

All TIAP procedures between January 2004 and December 2010 were included. Direct puncture of the subclavian vein (DP) represented the standard approach for port insertion until 2007, when surgical cut-down to the cephalic vein (CD) was introduced as a reliable alternative at our department. Primary success rate, procedure time and postoperative complications within 30 days were analysed.

Results

In 301 (64.9 %) cases, DP was performed, and CD was done 163 times. Primary success rate for DP and CD was 94.4 and 87.1 %, respectively (p = 0.012). Mean procedure time was significantly longer in the CD group (38 vs. 32 min; p = 0.008). On routine postoperative chest X-ray, pneumothoraces were seen only following DP (10/301; 3.3 %), twice (2/301; 0.7 %) necessitating drainage. Early port infection (n = 6), haematoma (n = 2) and inadvertent arterial placement (n = 1) were seen following DP only. Complication rate for DP and CD procedures accounted for 7 and 1.2 %, respectively (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Surgical CD is associated with a minimal risk for (severe) early complications and should be favoured over DP for TIAP implantation even if it takes longer and is associated with a lower primary success rate

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

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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Biffi R, Corrado F, de Braud F, et al. Long-term, totally implantable central venous access ports connected to a Groshong catheter for chemotherapy of solid tumours: experience from 178 cases using a single type of device. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:1190–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Seldinger SI. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiol. 1953;39:368–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Povoski SP. A prospective analysis of the cephalic vein cutdown approach for chronic indwelling central venous access in 100 consecutive cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:496–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nocito A, Wildi S, Rufibach K, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous ports. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1129–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S. 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. 2009;20:935–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Di Carlo I, Pulvirenti E, Mannino M, et al. Increased use of percutaneous technique for totally implantable venous access devices. Is it real progress? A 27-year comprehensive review on early complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Seiler CM, Frohlich BE, Dorsam UJ, et al. Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: a multivariate analysis of 400 patients. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ott J, Kromer M, Herbst F, et al. Massive fluidopneumothorax after implantation of a totally implantable venous access port: report of a case. Eur Surg. 2012;44:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Parsonnet V, Roelke M. The cephalic vein cutdown versus subclavian puncture for pacemaker/ICD lead implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22:695–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolettis TM, Lysitsas DN, Apostolidis D, et al. Improved ‘cut-down’ technique for transvenous pacemaker lead implantation. Europace. 2010;12:1282–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Camuñas J, Mehta D, Ip J, et al. Total pectoral implantation: a new technique for implantation of transvenous defibrillator lead systems and implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1993;16:1380–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing committee to revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices) developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin CH, Wu HS, Chan DC, et al. The mechanisms of failure of totally implantable central venous access system: analysis of 73 cases with fracture of catheter. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:100–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mirza B, Vanek VW, Kupensky DT. Pinch-off syndrome: case report and collective review of the literature. Am Surg. 2004;70:635–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsien HF, et al. An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32:90–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Torramadé JR, Cienfuegos JA, Hernández JL, et al. The complications of central venous access systems: a study of 218 patients. Eur J Surg. 1993;159:232–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chuter T, Starker PM. Placement of Hickman-Broviac catheters in the cephalic vein. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988;166:163–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Au FC. The anatomy of the cephalic vein. Am Surg. 1989;55:638–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chang HM, Hsieh HF, Hsu SD, et al. Guidwire assisted cephalic vein cutdown for insertion of totally implantable access ports. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95:156–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Neri R, Cesario AS, Baragli D, et al. Permanent pacing lead insertion through the cephalic vein using an hydrophilic guidwire. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26:2313–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Camous JP, Raybaud F, Lesto I, et al. Introduction of permanent cardiac stimulation/defibrillation leads via the retro-pectoral veins. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28:324–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Knebel P, Lopez-Benitez R, Fischer L, et al. Insertion of totally implantable venous access devices: an expertise-based, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00600444). Ann Surg. 2011;253:1111–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin CP, Wang YC, Lin FS, et al. Ultrasound-assisted percutaneous catheterization of the axillary vein for totally implantable venous access device. EJSO. 2011;37:448–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, et al. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:2053–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lefrant JY, Cuvillon P, Bénézet JF, et al. Pulsed Doppler ultrasonography guidance for catheterization of the subclavian vein: a randomized study. Anesthesiology. 1998;88:1195–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bold RJ, Winchester DJ, Madary AR, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler-assisted subclavian vein catheterization. Arch Surg. 1998;133:1089–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, St John of God Hospital, Johannes von Gott Platz 1, 1020, Vienna, Austria

    B. Dauser MD, J. Stopfer MD, S. Ghaffari MD & F. Herbst MD, FRCS

Authors
  1. B. Dauser MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Stopfer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Ghaffari MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Herbst MD, FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Dauser MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dauser, B., Stopfer, J., Ghaffari, S. et al. Subclavian vein puncture vs. surgical cut-down to the cephalic vein for insertion of totally implantable venous access ports. Eur Surg 44, 331–335 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-012-0157-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-012-0157-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation