|
KMID : 0357520110340010035
|
|
Journal of Radiological Science and Technology
2011 Volume.34 No. 1 p.35 ~ p.41
|
|
|
Compared the Causes of Problematic Chemo-Ports According to the Types of Chemo-Ports(Valved, vs. Non-Valved)
|
|
You In-Gyu
Lim Cheong-Hwan
Han Beom-Hui
Jung Hong-Ryang
Joo Young-Cheol
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
Total implanted central venous port (TIAP, Chemoport) is widely used in oncology patients because it does not require external dressing and restricts patient activity. Chemoport only requires monthly flushes of heparinized saline to keep the patency of the catheter and probably less prone to infectious complications than tunneled catheter. Despite the extensive use of permanent central venous access in oncology patients, there are only few reports about clinical experience of the Groshong catheter. The purpose of this study is to compare the complication rate between the traditional open-ended (non-valved) chemoports and valved chemoports (Groshong catheter connected to TIAP). During 5 years (Jan 2006 to May 2010), 438 patients received chemoport insertion procedure in our interventional radiology department. Among them 30 patients was referred to our department for problematic chemoports. We compared the cause of problematic chemoports between two types of chemoports (valved, vs. non-valved). Valved chemoports had higher referral rates than non-valved chemoports. When there is a need to insert valved port, different method of insertion and maintenance procedure seems to be necessary. More than 20 ml of flusing with heparinized saline after blood sampling could be a good suggestion. Adequate care of chemoport is essential for long patency. Also following the guideline from the manufacturing company is necessary.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Valved port, Non-valved port, port complication
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|