Chemoport Insertion—Less Is More

• Published in: Indian journal of surgical oncology 2021-03, Vol.12 (1), p.139-145
• Main Authors: Shah, Tanay, Vijay, D. G., Shah, Niket, Patel, Bhavesh, Patel, Samir, Khant, Nikhilsinh, Gothwal, Kalyansing
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer surgery; Local anesthesia; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oncology; Original; Original Article; Patients; Surgery; Surgical Oncology
• ISSN: 0975-7651; 0976-6952
• DOI: 10.1007/s13193-020-01265-6

Implantable chemoport is a very useful device for long-term venous access for infusion of chemotherapeutic drugs and other agents. There are few studies from resource poor countries reporting complications of chemoport. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of chemoport insertion without image guidance and by closed technique without direct visualisation of a major vein (mainly IJV) and to study the complications associated with the procedure. This was a prospective observational study which analysed 263 patients who underwent chemoport insertion. The medical records of these patients were analysed for the patient characteristics, diagnosis, port-related complications, and their management. A total of 263 patients who were harbouring either locoregionally advanced or metastatic tumour requiring either chemotherapy or targeted treatment or both were included in the study. In total, 133 (50.57%) were female patients and 130 were male patients (49.43%). A total of 236 patients (89.73%) underwent port insertion procedures under local anaesthesia. None of the patients had any major intra-operative complications. Postoperatively, 4 patients (1.52%) were found to have port catheter malposition; 3 out of this 4 were corrected under IITV guidance as a second procedure under local anaesthesia only. One patient (0.38%) required formal removal and replacement of port. Four patients (1.52%) developed IJV thrombosis requiring port removal and anti-coagulation. One patient (0.38%) developed thrombus in the right atrium. There were 2 port site infections (0.74%) requiring port removal (SSI cat. 5). Low complication rates of port insertion were observed in the present, large, prospective study. Complication rates may be further reduced by using a well-designed procedure, experienced surgeons, an aseptic environment, ultrasound-guided puncture, and fluoroscopy with contrast media.