Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate long-term clinical follow-up results of implanting subcutaneous port catheters (SPCs) on ipsilateral or contralateral with mastectomy side in patients with axillary lymph node dissection.
Methods
A total of 73 patients composed of ipsilateral (34 catheters) and contralateral (39 catheters) groups, with SPCs were included. All patients had lumpectomy or modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer. Ipsilateral and contralateral groups had similar patient characteristics.
Results
Five late complications were seen in the ipsilateral group and 2 late complications in the contralateral group. No statistical significant difference was seen between two groups in regard to late complications. Four complications of the ipsilateral group were classified as major group C and 1 as major group D, while 1 complication of the contralateral group was classified as minor group B and 1 as major group C according to Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) classification. No statistical significant difference was seen between complication rates of two groups in regard to SIR classification.
Conclusions
SPC related complications do not differ in regard to ipsilateral or contralateral side selection on mastectomized patients with breast cancer and lymph node dissection. SPCs can be implanted on ipsilateral or contralateral sides of the operation in these patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jan HC, Chou SJ, Chen TH et al (2012) Management and prevention of complications of subcutaneous intravenous infusion port. Surg Oncol 21:7–13
Gandhi RT, Getrajdman GI, Brown KT et al (2003) Placement of subcutaneous chest wall ports ipsilateral to axillary lymph node dissection. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:1063–1065
Rockson SG (1998) Precipitating factors in lymphedema: myths and realities. Cancer 83:2814–2816
Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS et al (2003) Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:443–452
Peynircioglu B, Arslan EB, Cil BE et al (2007) Subcutaneous venous port implantation in patients with bilateral breast surgery. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30:405–409
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
Almasi-Sperling V, Hieber S, Lermann J et al (2016) Femoral placement of totally implantable venous access ports in patients with bilateral breast cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 76:53–58
Kuriakose P, Colon-Otero G, Paz-Fumagalli R (2002) 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 13:179–184
Marcy PY (2008) Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol 18:2333–2344
Uren RF, Howman-Giles RB, Chung D et al (2005) Role of lymphoscintigraphy for selective sentinel lymphadenectomy. Cancer Treat Res 127:15–38
Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C et al (2001) Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 24:180–184
Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3:684–692
Pardo I, Rager EL, Bowling MW et al (2011) Central venous port placement: a comparison of axillary versus anterior chest wall placement. Ann Surg Oncol 18:468–471
Biffi R, Corrado F, de Braud F et al (1997) 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 33:1190–1194
Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 9:767–773
Winters V, Peters B, Coilá S et al (1990) A trial with a new peripheral implanted vascular access device. Oncol Nurs Forum 17:891–896
Silver DF, Hempling RE, Recio FO et al (1998) Complications related to indwelling caval catheters on a gynecologic oncology service. Gynecol Oncol 70:329–333
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors of this manuscript, Omer Fatih Nas, Kadir Hacikurt, Ahmet Kaya, Nurullah Dogan, Bekir Sanal, Guven Ozkaya, Halit Ziya Dundar and Cuneyt Erdogan declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nas, O.F., Hacikurt, K., Kaya, A. et al. Choosing the appropriate side for subcutaneous port catheter placement in patients with mastectomy: ipsilateral or contralateral?. Radiol med 122, 472–478 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0736-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0736-8