Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

İmplante Edilebilir Venöz Port Kateter Uygulamalarımızın İncelenmesi

A Review of Our Implantable Venous Port Catheter Applications

Journal Name:

  • Fırat Tıp Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Objective: Implantable Venous Port Catheters are frequently used in cancer patients on whom long term intravenous treatment will be applied. In literature, this process was undertaken by oncologists, radiologists and surgeons. The objective of this study is to review venous port catheters implanted by anesthesiologists and their results. Materials and Methods: 83 implantable venous ports, which were implanted in 79 patients between January, 2008 and March, 2010 in our clinic, have been examined retrospectively. Demographic data, port days and port types of the patients were recorded. Anaesthetic method applied during the process, localization of the intervention, problems with the intervention, the technique used, complications associated with the port which took place during the intervention and the reasons for their removal were noted. Results: The mean age of the patients was 53,5±11,72 year and 44 patients were female and 35 were male. Total number of port days was 26.397. As complications associated with the intervention, pneumothorax developed in one patient and malposition in 4 patients. In cases where port catheter malposition developed, it was seen that the intervention wasn't applied along with fluoroscopy. Following the intervention, malfunction was detected in 4 patients, catheter dislocation in 1 patient and suspected infection in 1 patient and skin necrosis in 1 patient. Conclusion: In order to show that Anesthesiologists, who perform central venous catheterization during routine and know the possible complications and their management methods, can also perform venous port implantation, we wanted to share our series.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: İmplante edilebilir santral venöz port kateterler (İESVPK), uzun dönemli intravenöz tedavi uygulanacak kanser hastalarında sıklıkla kullanılırlar. Literatürde bu işlemi onkolog, radyolog ve cerrahlar üstlenmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı anesteziyologların yerleştirdiği venöz port kateter ve sonuçlarını incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kliniğimizde 2008 Ocak ve 2010 Mart tarihleri arasında 79 hastaya yerleştirilen 83 adet subkutan implante edilen venöz port retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastaların demografik verileri, primer tanıları, port yerleştirme endikasyonu, port günü ve port tipi kaydedildi. İşlem sırasında uygulanan anestezi yöntemi, girişimin lokalizasyonu, girişimle ilgili sorunlar, kullanılan teknik, portla ilgili girişim sırasında ve sonrasında gelişen komplikasyonlar ve çıkarılma nedenleri kaydedildi. Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama yaşı 53,5±11,72 yıl, 44'ü kadın 35'i ise erkekti. Bütün hastaların primer tanısı malignensiydi, port bir hastaya total parenteral nütrisyon diğerlerine ise kemoterapi amaçlı yerleştirildi. Portların 70'i sağ subklavian venden, 10'u sol subklavian venden ve 3'ü internal juguler venden Seldinger tekniğine göre perkütan olarak cavaatrial bileşkede olacak şekilde yerleştirildi. Toplam port günü 26.397 ve ortalama port günü ise 366 gündü. Girişimle ilgili komplikasyonlar olarak bir hastada pnömotoraks, dört hastada malpozisyon gelişti. Port kateter malpozisyon gelişen olgularda girişimin skopi eşliğinde uygulanmadığı gözlendi. Girişim sonrası ise dört hastada malfonksiyon, bir hastada kateterin çıkması, bir hastada enfeksiyon şüphesi ve bir hastada cilt nekrozu saptandı. Sonuç: Kanser hastalarındaki kemoterapi gibi uzun süreli tedavilerde İESVPK yerleştirilmesi tercih edilmektedir. Rutin sırasında santral venöz kateterizasyon yapan ve olası komplikasyonlarını ve başa çıkma yöntemlerini bilen Anesteziyologların da venöz port implantasyon işlemini gerçek¬leştirebileceklerini göstermek amacıyla 83 olguluk serimizi yayınlamak istedik.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-implante-edilebilir-venoz-port-kateter-uygulamalarimizin-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 1
6-10
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Smith TP. Vascular and interventional radiology. In: Brant WE, Helms CA (editors) Fundamentals of diagnostic radiology, 3.
baskı,
LW
W 2007: 669-730.
2. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH. A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973; 136: 602-606.
3. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, ve ark. A modified right atrial catheter for Access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979; 148: 871-875.
4. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, ve ark. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheter in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982; 92: 706-712.
5. Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F, ve ark. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 1204-1212.
6. Stanislav GV, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Bailey RT Jr, ve ark. Reliability of implantable central venous access devices in patients with cancer. Arch Surg 1987; 122: 1280-1283.
7. Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisani Ceretti A, ve ark. Complications of subcutaneous infusion port in the general oncology population.
Oncology 1999; 56: 97-102.
8. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, ve ark. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 1050-1053.
9
Fırat Tıp
Dergis
i 2011;16(1): 6-10
Özer
v
e Bayar
9. Gowda MR, Gowda RM, Khan IA, ve ark. Positional Ventricular Tachycardia from a Fractured Mediport Catheter with Right Ventricular Migration: A Case Report. Angiology
2004; 55; 557-560.
10. Burns KEA, McLaren A. Catheter-related right atrial thrombus and pulmonary embolism: A case report and systematic review of the literature. Can Respir J 2009; 16: 163-165.
11. Mihmanli I, Cantasdemir M, Kantarci F, Mandel NM, Cokyuksel O. Lower-Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis after Upper-Extremity Port Catheter Placement: an Unusual complication. J
Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30: 562-565.
12. Hacking MB, Brown J, Chisholm DG. Position dependent ventricular tachycardia in two children with peripherally inserted
central catheters (PICCs) Paediatr Anaesth 2003; 13: 527-529.
13. Castelli P. Cardiac Tamponade Resulting From Attempted Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1997; 11: 195-196.
14. Karakaya D, Baris S, Güldogus F, ve ark. Brachial Plexus Injury During Subclavian Vein Catheterization for Hemodialysis. J
Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 220-223.
15. Droll KP, Lossing AG. Carotid-Jugular Arteriovenous Fistula: Case Report of an Iatrogenic Complication Following Internal
Jugular Vein Catheterization. J Clin Anesth 2004; 16: 127-129.
16. Collier PE, Blocker SH, Graff DM, Doyle P. Cardiac
Tamponade from Central Venous Catheters. Am J Surg 1998;
176: 212-214.
17. Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 2009; 198: 829-833.
18. Yıldırım Özdemir N, Abalı H, Öksüzoğlu B, ve ark. It appears to be safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation through subcutaneous venous port catheters in inpatient setting. Support Care Cancer 2009; 17: 399-403.
19. Turcotte S, Dube S, Beauchamp G. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are not superior to central venous catheters in the acute care of surgical patients on the ward. World J Surg 2006; 30: 1605-1619.
20. Connolly B, Amaral J, Walsh S, ve ark. Influence of arm movement on central tip location of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 845-850.
21. Forauer AR, Alonzo M. Change in peripherally inserted central catheter tip position with abduction and adduction of the upper extremity. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11: 1315-1318.
22. Cowl CT, Weinstock JV, Al-Jurf A, ve ark. Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalized patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted
central catheters. Clin Nutr 2000; 19: 237-243.
23. Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol
2002; 3: 684-693.
24. Czepizak CA, O'Callaghan JM, Venus B. Evaluation of formulas for optimal positioning of central venous catheters. Chest 1995; 107: 1662.
25. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, ve ark. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 1168-1174.
26. Graham DR, Keldermans MM, Klemm LW, Semenza NJ, Shafer ML. Infectious complications among patients receiving home intravenous therapy with peripheral, central, or peripherally placed central venous catheters. Am J Med 1991;
91: 95-100.
27. Yıldızeli B, Laçin T, Batirel HF, Yüksel M. Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. J Vasc Access 2004; 5: 174-178.
28. Lin CH, Wu HS, Chan DC, ve ark. The mechanism of failure of totally implantable central venous access system: Analysis of 73 cases with fracture of cathter. EJSO 2010: 36; 100-103.
Kabul Tarihi: 26.10.2010

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com