Department of Plastic Surgery, Roskilde University Hospital, Koegevej 7-13, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Feb;63(2):327-31. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.11.019. Epub 2008 Dec 6.
It has previously been questioned if the injection port of soft-tissue expanders is a source of leakage. However, several laboratory studies have concluded that the port is safe. A former quality assessment of our one-stage breast reconstructive procedures showed, that suspicion of leakage led to the removal of the injection port in 12% of the cases. With this level of inconsistency with previous laboratory studies, we found a need to conduct a separate study in order to confirm the true cause of leakage. Thirteen consecutively removed McGhan Style 150 injection ports were examined for leakage by increasing intraluminal pressure. Eight of the 13 ports had been removed because of discomfort due to the subcutaneous placement. Three of these eight ports showed substantial leakage (up to 14.55 ml/hour) at pressures attainable under normal in vivo circumstances. Five of the 13 ports had been removed due to clinical leakage. All five showed substantial leakage in the experimental setting (up to 19.65 ml/hour). Comparing the placement of the leaking puncture holes with the construction of the port, it seems that the leaking puncture holes are the result of peripheral perforations escaping the self-sealing material in the port, while still allowing injection of saline. The study shows clinical and experimental evidence of leakage from the McGhan Style 150 injection port, which is contrary to other similar laboratory studies. However, in those studies the needles were inserted at the apex of the port membrane, while our study shows that this is not in accordance with a clinical setting, where perforation may be all over the port. It is concluded that extreme care should be taken in the clinical setting only to perpendicularly perforate the apex of the injection port membrane. Peripheral perforation of the port may result in leakage of saline.
此前曾有人质疑软组织扩张器的注射口是否是渗漏的源头。然而,几项实验室研究的结论认为,该注射口是安全的。我们之前对一期乳房重建手术的质量评估表明,怀疑有渗漏会导致 12%的病例移除注射口。由于与之前的实验室研究结果存在如此不一致的情况,我们发现有必要进行一项单独的研究,以确认渗漏的确切原因。通过增加管腔内压力,对 13 个连续取出的 McGhan Style 150 注射口进行了渗漏检查。这 13 个注射口中有 8 个因皮下放置而感到不适而被取出。其中 8 个注射口中有 3 个在正常体内情况下可达到的压力下显示出明显的渗漏(高达 14.55 毫升/小时)。这 13 个注射口中有 5 个因临床渗漏而被取出。所有 5 个在实验环境中都显示出明显的渗漏(高达 19.65 毫升/小时)。将渗漏的穿刺孔的位置与注射口的结构进行比较,似乎渗漏的穿刺孔是由于周围的穿孔从注射口的自封材料中逸出,但仍允许盐水注射所致。该研究显示了 McGhan Style 150 注射口的临床和实验证据表明存在渗漏,这与其他类似的实验室研究结果相反。然而,在那些研究中,针头是从注射口膜的顶点插入的,而我们的研究表明,这与临床情况不符,在临床情况下,穿孔可能遍布整个注射口。因此,在临床环境中,应格外小心,只垂直刺穿注射口膜的顶点。注射口的周围穿孔可能会导致盐水渗漏。