Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital, RWTH-Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Eur J Radiol. 2011 Sep;79(3):338-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.12.010. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
To determine the safest and most tolerable method for totally implantable access ports (TIAPs) particularly in regard to patient's pain perception and catheter-related complications.
From January 2007 to October 2008 a subcutaneous TIAP (Bardport, Bard Access System, UT, USA) was implanted in 138 oncological patients (60 male, 78 female; 18-85 years old; mean age of 56 ± 6 years) by experienced interventional radiologists. 94 TIAP were implanted through the subclavian vein (subclavian group) and 44 TIAP were implanted through the internal jugular vein (jugular group). Intrainterventional pain perception (visual analogue scale from 1 to 10), postinterventional catheter tip migration and radiation dose were documented for each method and implantation side and differences were compared with Wilcoxon t-test. For ordinal variables, comparison of two groups was performed with the Fisher's exact test.
No severe periinterventional complication occurred. Inadvertent arterial punctures without serious consequences were reported in one case for the jugular group versus four cases in the subclavian group. Significantly (p<0.05) lower pain perception, radiation dose and tip migration rate were observed in the jugular group. Catheter occlusions occurred in 4% (n=4) of the subclavian group versus 2% (n=1) of the jugular group. The corresponding values for vein thrombosis and catheter dislocation were 3% (n=3) and 1% (n=1) in the subclavian group, while none of those complications occurred in the jugular group.
Both techniques, the TIAP implantation via fluoroscopy-guided subclavian vein puncture and via ultrasound-guided jugular vein puncture, are feasible and safe. Regarding intrainterventional pain perception, radiation dose, postinterventional catheter tip position and port function the jugular vein puncture under ultrasound guidance seems to be advantageous.
确定完全植入式接入端口(TIAP)的最安全和最耐受的方法,特别是关于患者的疼痛感知和导管相关并发症。
从 2007 年 1 月至 2008 年 10 月,经验丰富的介入放射科医生在 138 例肿瘤患者(60 名男性,78 名女性;年龄 18-85 岁;平均年龄 56 ± 6 岁)中植入了皮下 TIAP(Bardport, Bard Access System,UT,美国)。94 个 TIAP 通过锁骨下静脉植入(锁骨组),44 个 TIAP 通过颈内静脉植入(颈静脉组)。记录了每种方法和植入侧的术中疼痛感知(1 到 10 的视觉模拟量表)、术后导管尖端迁移和辐射剂量,并使用 Wilcoxon t 检验比较差异。对于有序变量,使用 Fisher 精确检验比较两组。
无严重围手术期并发症发生。颈静脉组报告了一例无意中动脉穿刺但无严重后果,而锁骨组报告了四例。颈静脉组的疼痛感知、辐射剂量和尖端迁移率明显(p<0.05)较低。锁骨组导管阻塞发生率为 4%(n=4),颈静脉组为 2%(n=1)。锁骨组静脉血栓形成和导管脱位的相应发生率为 3%(n=3)和 1%(n=1),而颈静脉组无任何并发症发生。
经荧光透视引导锁骨下静脉穿刺和经超声引导颈内静脉穿刺植入 TIAP 两种技术都是可行且安全的。关于术中疼痛感知、辐射剂量、术后导管尖端位置和端口功能,超声引导下颈内静脉穿刺似乎具有优势。