Abstract
Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous access ports without guidance in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of total 163 lung cancer patients who underwent implantations of a central venous access port for chemotherapy. 95 patients received the ports by the femoral vein blind-puncture technique and 68patients had the port implanted via the subclavian vein blind-puncture technique. The initial success rate of port implantation and the frequency of occurrence of complications were calculated. Results: The primary success rate of venous port implantation was 93.7% for femoral approach and 88.2% for the subclavian approach respectively (p < 0.05). Intraoperative complications developed in two patients (2.1%) in the femoral approach group and in five patients (7.4%) in the subclavian approach group. Although a higher intraoperative complication ratio for the subclavian approach was encountered compared to that for the femoral vein approach, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.103). Nor was there any statistically significant difference in terms of the occurrence of late complications. Conclusions: Venous access port implantation via the femoral vein approach is safe, and its success rate is very high, with the equal complication rates comparable to the subclavian approach. This approach avoids many of the intraoperative complications. Thus, the femoral vein approach for implanting a venous access port in lung cancer patients should be considered a valid, and safe technique.
Highlights
Long-term central venous access has increasingly become important in the treatment of patients with advanced or unresectable lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy [1,2] because a venotoxic antineoplastic agent may compromise venous integrity, making further treatment impossible
We conducted a retrospective review of total 163 lung cancer patients who underwent implantations of a central venous access port for chemotherapy. 95 patients received the ports by the femoral vein blind-puncture technique and 68patients had the port implanted via the subclavian vein blind-puncture technique
Intraoperative complications developed in two patients (2.1%) in the femoral approach group and in five patients (7.4%) in the subclavian approach group
Summary
Long-term central venous access has increasingly become important in the treatment of patients with advanced or unresectable lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy [1,2] because a venotoxic antineoplastic agent may compromise venous integrity, making further treatment impossible. We describe a study comparing the initial success rate and incidence of intra-operative and late complications between the implantation of venous access ports using the femoral versus the subclavian vein approaches without guidance in advanced lung cancer patients. The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous access ports without guidance in lung cancer patients. Conclusions: Venous access port implantation via the femoral vein approach is safe, and its success rate is very high, with the equal complication rates comparable to the subclavian approach. This approach avoids many of the intraoperative complications. The femoral vein approach for implanting a venous access port in lung cancer patients should be considered a valid, and safe technique
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
