Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Ultrasound-Guided Procedure with the Seldinger’s Technique for Placement of Implantable Venous Ports

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this randomized controlled study was to compare ultrasound-guided procedure with the Seldinger’s technique for placement of implantable venous ports. A total of 214 patients were randomized to receive TIAP placement by either ultrasound-guided procedure or the Seldinger’s technique. Complications and pain perception were compared between these two groups. No severe perioperative or periinterventional complication occurred. Significantly (P < 0.05) lower pain perception was observed in the ultrasound-guided group. Seldinger’s technique group showed higher rate in incidence of early and late complications including catheter dislocation, catheter occlusion, venous thrombosis, fever of unknown origin, skin necrosis, and sepsis. In conclusion, both techniques, the TIAP implantation via ultrasound-guided jugular vein puncture and via Seldinger’s technique subclavian vein puncture, are feasible and safe. Regarding intrainterventional pain perception and implantation-related complications, the jugular vein puncture under ultrasound guidance seems to be advantageous.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bow, E. J., Kilpatrick, M. G., & Clinch, J. J. (1999). Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: A randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(4), 1267.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Niederhuber, J. E., et al. (1982). Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery, 92(4), 706–712.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Plumhans, C., Mahnken, A. H., Ocklenburg, C., Keil, S., Behrendt, F. F., Günther, R. W., et al. (2011). Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: Catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception. European Journal of Radiology, 79(3), 338–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Teichgräber, U. M., et al. (2011). Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. European Radiology, 21(6), 1224–1232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seldinger, S. I. (1953). Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiologica, 39(5), 368–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nocito, A., et al. (2009). Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports. British Journal of Surgery, 96(10), 1129–1134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johansson, E., et al. (2009). Patients’ perceptions of having a central venous catheter or a totally implantable subcutaneous port system–results from a randomised study in acute leukaemia. Supportive Care in Cancer, 17(2), 137–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maki, D. G., Kluger, D. M., & Crnich, C. J. (2006). The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: A systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 81(9), 1159–1171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carde, P., et al. (1989). Classical external indwelling central venous catheter versus totally implanted venous access systems for chemotherapy administration: A randomized trial in 100 patients with solid tumors. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, 25(6), 939–944.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mueller, B. U., et al. (1992). A prospective randomized trial comparing the infectious and noninfectious complications of an externalized catheter versus a subcutaneously implanted device in cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 10(12), 1943–1948.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hooda, B., et al. (2008). Implantable port devices are catheters of choice for administration of chemotherapy in pediatric oncology patients-a clinical experience in Pakistan. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1138, 43–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Povoski, S. P. (2000). A prospective analysis of the cephalic vein cutdown approach for chronic indwelling central venous access in 100 consecutive cancer patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 7(7), 496–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Silberzweig, J. E., et al. (2000). Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 11(3), 391–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gebauer, B., et al. (2009). Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation–high success and low complication rate. European Journal of Radiology, 69(3), 517–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Teichgräber, U. K., et al. (2003). Central venous access catheters: Radiological management of complications. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, 26(4), 321–333.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hind, D., et al. (2003). Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: Meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327(7411), 361.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Biffi, R., et al. (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. Annals of Oncology, 20(5), 935–940.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Carlo, I., et al. (2010). Increased use of percutaneous technique for totally implantable venous access devices. Is it real progress? A 27-year comprehensive review on early complications. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17(6), 1649–1656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karakitsos, D., et al. (2006). Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: A prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Critical Care, 10(6), R162.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nelson, B. E., et al. (1994). Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecologic Oncology, 53(1), 98–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey, W. H., et al. (1989). A prospective evaluation of the Port-A-Cath implantable venous access system in chronically ill adults and children. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 169(6), 495–500.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Keum, D. Y., Kim, J. B., & Chae, M. C. (2013). Safety of a totally implantable central venous port system with percutaneous subclavian vein access. Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 46(3), 202–207.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Behrendt, F. F., et al. (2006). Evaluation of catheter loops in central venous port systems. Investigative Radiology, 41(11), 777–780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Caers, J., et al. (2005). Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Supportive Care in Cancer, 13(5), 325–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cil, B. E., et al. (2006). Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: A single center experience. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 12(2), 93–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lorch, H., et al. (2001). Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: Experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, 24(3), 180–184.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Funaki, B., et al. (1997). Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. American Journal of Roentgenology, 169(5), 1431–1434.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yip, D., & Funaki, B. (2002). Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiologica, 43(4), 371–375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Strum, S., et al. (1986). Improved methods for venous access: The Port-A-Cath, a totally implanted catheter system. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 4(4), 596–603.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kock, H. J., et al. (1998). Implantable vascular access systems: Experience in 1,500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World Journal of Surgery, 22(1), 12–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Jiangyin People’s Hospital, Jiangyin, 214400, China

    Jianzhong Miao, Lijun Ji, Jianjun Lu & Jianqing Chen

Authors
  1. Jianzhong Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lijun Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianjun Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianqing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianzhong Miao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miao, J., Ji, L., Lu, J. et al. Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Ultrasound-Guided Procedure with the Seldinger’s Technique for Placement of Implantable Venous Ports. Cell Biochem Biophys 70, 559–563 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-014-9956-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-014-9956-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation