Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · South Asian J Cancer 2021; 10(04): 261-264
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739041
Original Article: Supportive and Palliative Care

Totally Implantable Venous Access Device (Chemoport) in Oncology: Study of 168 Polyurethane Chemoport Catheter System

Gyanendra Swaroop Mittal
1   Department of Surgery, Santosh Medical College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Deepak Sundriyal 
2   Department of Medical Oncology, Hematology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
,
Niranjan B. Naik
3   Department of Surgical Oncology, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana, India
,
Amit Sehrawat 
2   Department of Medical Oncology, Hematology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
› Author Affiliations Funding Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Chemoport (totally implantable venous access device) and its catheter system are used to administer long-term chemotherapy in cancer patients. The objective of this study was to analyze the complications associated with chemoport insertion in various cancer patients.

Material and Methods A total number of 168 chemoports along with polyurethane catheters were inserted in various cancer patients over a period of 3 years. 9.6 F polyurethane catheters were put by a team of surgical oncologists in operation theater under general or local anesthesia. Analysis of the complications was done until the chemoport was removed due to any reason.

Results Out of 168 patients, 30 (17.85%) developed complications. Complications included arterial puncture, malposition of the catheter tip, pneumothorax, hematoma, seroma, deep vein thrombosis, fracture of the catheter, a reversal of port, infections, and thrombosis of the catheter. Only a few required premature port and catheter removal.

Conclusion There was a low rate of complications associated with chemoport using a polyurethane type of catheter system. However, infection-related complications were comparatively more common in our series. Chemoport requires expert handling, patient education, strict follow-up, and dedicated teamwork to minimize complications.

Keywords

TIVAD - polyurethane - chemoport


Publication History

Article published online:
31 December 2021

© 2021. MedIntel Services Pvt Ltd. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, Liepman M, Doan K, Cozzi E. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982; 92 (04) 706-712
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Munck A, Malbezin S, Bloch J. et al Follow-up of 452 totally implantable vascular devices in cystic fibrosis patients. Eur Respir J 2004; 23 (03) 430-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Davies MG, Feeley TM, Moore DJ, Shanik GD. Home parenteral nutrition using a totally implanted subcutaneous venous access device. Br J Clin Pract 1990; 44 (12) 750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F. et al A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001; 92 (05) 1204-1212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S. et al 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 (05) 935-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nishinari K, Wolosker N, Bernardi CV, Yazbek G. Totally implantable ports connected to valved catheters for chemotherapy: experience from 350 Groshong devices. J Vasc Access 2010; 11: 17-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Brown DF, Muirhead MJ, Travis PM, Vire SR, Weller J, Hauer-Jensen M. Mode of chemotherapy does not affect complications with an implantable venous access device. Cancer 1997; 80 (05) 966-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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 (6-7) 323-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brothers TE, Von LK Moll, Niederhuber JE, Roberts JA, Walker-Andrews S, Ensminger WD. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988; 166 (04) 295-301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 2009; 198 (06) 829-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B. et al An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35 (03) 241-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP. et al Patients’ attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33 (01) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar