Serkan YAZMAN, Tevfik GÜNEŞ, Serdar BAYRAK, Barçın ÖZCEM, Orhan GÖKALP, Ali GÜRBÜZ, İsmail YÜREKLİ

Hibrid ameliyathanelerde skopi altında port kateter implantasyonu

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, kardiyovasküler cerrahi ünitelerinde son yıllarda hızla artan şekilde oluşturulan ve yeni açılımlara neden olan hibrid ameliyathanelerde yapılan port kateter implantasyon sonuçları değerlendirildi. Çalışma planı: Bu çalışmaya Kasım 2008 - Aralık 2010 tarihleri arasında hastanemiz hematoloji ünitesinde çeşitli patolojiler nedeniyle yatan ve tedavileri sırasında port kateter implantasyonu yapılan 54 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların tamamına kalp damar cerrahisi hibrid ameliyathanesinde intravenöz sedasyon ve lokal anestezi altında, skopi eşliğinde port kateter takılması işlemi uygulandı. Bulgular: İşlemin başarı oranı %100 olarak hesaplanırken, işleme bağlı majör komplikasyon gelişmedi. Yalnızca bir hastada lokal hematom saptandı, uzun dönemde ise bir hastada tromboz gözlendi. Bir hastada ise geç dönemde lokal enfeksiyon saptandı. Sonuç: Subkutan venöz portların kalp ve damar cerrahisi ameliyathanelerinde skopi altında implantasyonu, literatürde bildirilen klasik cerrahi olgu serileriyle karşılaştırıldığında daha düşük komplikasyon oranı ile gerçekleştirilebilmektedir.

Port catheter implantation under scopy in hybrid operation rooms

Background: This study aims to evaluate the results of port catheter implantation in hybrid operating rooms which have become widely used in cardiovascular surgery units in recent years, resulting new improvements. Methods: Between November 2008 and December 2010, 54 patients who were hospitalized in the hematology unit in our hospital due to several pathologies and underwent port catheter implantation during their treatment were included. All patients underwent port catheter implantation with the guidance of scopy under intravenous sedation and local anesthesia in the cardiovascular hybrid operating room. Results: The success rate of the procedure was 100%, while no major complication related to the procedure was seen. Local hematoma was detected only in one patient, while thrombosis was found in another patient in the long-term. One patient developed local infection in the late stage. Conclusion: Compared to classical surgical case series reported in the literature, subcutaneous venous port implantation under scopy in the cardiovascular hybrid operating room can be performed with a lower complication rate.

PDF

___

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;92:706-12.
2. Krupski G, Fröschle GW, Weh FJ, Schlosser GA. Central venous access devices in treatment of patients with malignant tumors: venous port, central venous catheter and Hickman catheter. Cost-benefit analysis based on a critical review of the literature, personal experiences with 135 port implantations and patient attitude. Chirurg 1995;66:202-7. [Abstract]
3. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, Friedlander-Klar H, Brown AE, Kiehn TE, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:1168-74.
4. Seiler CM, Frohlich BE, Dorsam UJ, Kienle P, Buchler MW, Knaebel HP. Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: a multivariate analysis of 400 patients. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:24-9.
5. Yip D, Funaki B. Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiol 2002;43:371-5.
6. Charvát J, Linke Z, Horáèková M, Prausová J. Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients: single center experience. Support Care Cancer 2006;14:1162-5.
7. Gann M Jr, Sardi A. Improved results using ultrasound guidance for central venous access. Am Surg 2003;69:1104-7.
8. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a metaanalysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 1996;24:2053-8.
9. Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, Wagner HJ. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation- -high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 2009;69:517-22.
10. Silas AM, Perrich KD, Hoffer EK, McNulty NJ. Complication rates and outcomes of 536 implanted subcutaneous chest ports: do rates differ based on the primary operator's level of training? Acad Radiol 2010;17:464-7.
11. Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2001;24:180-4.
12. Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA, Rosenblum JD, Burke R, Chang T, et al. Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1431-4.
13. Deshpande KS, Hatem C, Ulrich HL, Currie BP, Aldrich TK, Bryan-Brown CW, et al. The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population. Crit Care Med 2005;33:13-20.
14. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, Fahlke J, Peters B, Bischoff J, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:241-6.
15. Puel V, Caudry M, Le Métayer P, Baste JC, Midy D, Marsault C, et al. Superior vena cava thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy given through implanted ports. Cancer 1993;72:2248-52.
16. Minassian VA, Sood AK, Lowe P, Sorosky JI, Al-Jurf AS, Buller RE. Longterm central venous access in gynecologic cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:403-9.
17. Cohn DE, Mutch DG, Rader JS, Farrell M, Awantang R, Herzog TJ. Factors predicting subcutaneous implanted central venous port function: the relationship between catheter tip location and port failure in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:533-6.