ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the cause of severe complications after arterial perfusion for esophageal cancer and the methods of prevention. Methods 368 cases of esophageal cancer were treated with arterial perfusion of drugs for chemotherapy. The treatment numbers were 909 including 215 males and 153 females with the age ranging from 39 to 86. These patients were verified as esophageal cancers histopathologically. Selective angiography of the relevant esophageal segments and drugs for perfusion chemotherapy were undertaken. Results The complications included one case of paralysis due to spinal cord injury, two cases with esophageal perforation and three cases of necrotic esophagitis. The case of paralysis died of original disease one month after the treatment. Of the cases of esophageal perforation, one formed the esophgus-trachea fistula and survived for eight months after being esophageal stent implantation and the other formed esophagus-mediastinum fistula and died of massive hemorrhage after six weeks. Three cases of necrotic esophagitis occurred at the normal segments of the esophagus and formed esophgeal perforation. Of these three cases, one formed esophago-broncheal fistula and survived up to now after creating drainage stoma of stomach. Two cases of the esophgus-mediastinum and esophgus-bronchius fistula died of severe infection. Conclusions Severe complications of esophageal arterial catheterization with drugs for chemotherapy are rare. Less harmful, non-ionization contrast medium, low cellular toxicity drugs for chemotherapy with proper doses and concentrations should be selected together with optimal speed of infusion. Esophageal internal stent placement drainage stoma creation of stomach should be the useful adjunct for severe complications.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate, using various port systems, the technique and complications of intra-arterial portimplantation in visceral (mainly hepatic) arteries for intra-arterial chemoinfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Weretrospectively evaluated 30 cases of intra-arterial port implantation in 29 patients. Angiography was performedin all cases, and insertion of an implantable polyurethane port catheter was followed by angiographic exchangewhich, utilizing a .035" hydrophilic guide wire, targeted the artery. If a change in the direction of flow wasrequired, arterial flow control was performed, using an enbolie coil. In order to insert the subcutaneous portchamber, an incision approximately 4cm long was made at the puncture site and subcutaneous tissue was dissected.The port chamber was inserted into the subcutaneous pocket and fixed with a black-silk tagging suture. When thefemoral artery was punctured, the port chamber was inserted into the supra-or infrainguinal area; when the leftsubclavian artery was used, the port chamber was inserted into the lateral one third of the left clavicle. Theport systems used in the procedure were as follows : 5.8F Port-A-Cath (SIMS, Deltec, U.S.A.)(n=20) ; 5.2F A-Port(Therex, U.S.A.)(N=5); 5F PU-Anthron(Deny, Japan)(n=4) ; 5.2F R-Port(Therex, U.S.A.)(n=1). The subcutaneouschambers were inserted into the infrainguinal (n=22), suprainguinal (n=6) or subclavian area(n=2). RESULTS: Theprocedure was technically successful in all 30 cases. Port catheter tips were located in the hepatic arteryproper(n=11), the right hepatic(n=9), gastroduodenal (n=6), common hepatic (n=2), inferior mesenteric (n=1) andinternal iliac artery(n=1). In 12 cases, flow was controlled using embolic coils. Follow-up study was performed in23 cases, with a mean follow up period of 55.8 (11-161) days. Complications were noted in four cases ; two wereprocedure related and two were catheter related. CONCLUSION: Intra-arterial port implantation is a safe procedureand can be performed easily by skilled radiologists; long-term observation is, however, still needed.