Choi Jung Sik, Park Keun-Myoung, Jung Sungteak, Hong Kee Chun, Jeon Yong Sun, Cho Soon Gu, Choe Yun-Mee
Department of Surgery, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Department of Radiology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Vasc Specialist Int. 2017 Sep;33(3):108-111. doi: 10.5758/vsi.2017.33.3.108. Epub 2017 Sep 30.
Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are commonly used in pediatrics for the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, or parenteral nutrition. TIVADs can be implanted using various techniques, including surgical cutdown (SC) and percutaneous puncture (PP). Recently, percutaneous TIVAD became popular in adults, but studies comparing between PP and SC group in pediatric patients are rare.
Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively from 23 patients who underwent TIVAD at a single institution between January 2013 and December 2015. We examined the clinical characteristics, insertion techniques, and clinical outcome. We divided the patients into 2 groups and compared PP with ultrasonography and SC using the insertion technique. We compared success rate, procedural time, and the patency rate between the 2 groups.
Eleven TIVADS were inserted using PP, and 12 TIVADs were inserted using SC. No statistically significant difference in characteristics was found between the 2 groups. The procedural time in the PP group was shorter than that in the SC group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.685). During follow-up, 1 patient in the SC group had an occlusion, and 1 patient in the PP group had an infection.
PP of the internal jugular vein with ultrasonography appears to be the method of choice for TIVAD insertion owing to its similar success rate in terms of implantation and complication rate to that in SC, with shorter procedural times in pediatric patients.
完全植入式静脉通路装置(TIVADs)常用于儿科化疗、抗生素或肠外营养的给药。TIVADs可采用多种技术植入,包括外科切开(SC)和经皮穿刺(PP)。最近,经皮TIVAD在成人中变得流行,但比较儿科患者PP组和SC组的研究很少。
回顾性收集并分析2013年1月至2015年12月在单一机构接受TIVAD植入的23例患者的数据。我们检查了临床特征、植入技术和临床结果。我们将患者分为两组,比较使用超声引导的PP组和SC组的植入技术。我们比较了两组之间的成功率、操作时间和通畅率。
11例TIVADs采用PP植入,12例TIVADs采用SC植入。两组之间在特征上未发现统计学显著差异。PP组的操作时间短于SC组,但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.685)。在随访期间,SC组有1例患者发生堵塞,PP组有1例患者发生感染。
超声引导下经皮穿刺颈内静脉进行TIVAD植入似乎是首选方法,因为其在植入成功率和并发症发生率方面与SC相似,且儿科患者的操作时间更短。