Intra-arterial Port Implantation for Intra-arterial Chemotherapy: Comparison between PIPS(Pe rcutaneouslyImplantable Port System) and Port System

PURPOSE: To compare the techniques and complications of intra-arterial port implantation for intra-arterialchemotherapy between PIPS and the port system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For intra-arterial port implantation, 27cases in 27 patients were retrospectively evalu-ated using PIPS(PIPS-200, William Cook Europe, Denmark) while for21 cases in 19 patients a pediatric ve-nous port system(Port-A-Cath, 5.8F, SIMS Deltec, U.S.A.) was used. Allintra-arterial port implantation was performed percuteneously in an angiographic ward. Hepatocellular carcinomawas diagnosed in 18 patients and hepatic metastasis in 16. Peripheral cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic gastric,ovarian, renal cell and colon carcinoma were included. We compared the techniques and complications between PIPSand the port system. The follow up period ranged from 23 to 494(mean, 163) days in PIPS and from 12 to 431(mean,150) days in the port system. RESULTS: In all cases, intra-arterial port implantations were technicallysuccessful. Port catheter tips were locat-ed in the common hepatic artery(n=8), proper hepatic artery(n=7), righthepatic artery(n=5), gastroduodenal artery(n=2), left hepatic artery(n=1), pancreaticoduodenal artery(n=1),inferior mesenteric artery(n=1), lum-bar artery(n=1), and renal artery(n=1) in PIPS, and in the proper hepaticartery(n=6), gastroduodenal artery(n=6), common hepatic artery(n=3), right hepatic artery(n=4), inferiormesenteric artery(n=1), and in-ternal iliac artery(n=1) in the port system. Port chambers were buried ininfrainguinal subcutaneous tissue. Using PIPS, complications developed in seven cases(25.9%) and of these, four(57.1%) were catheter or cham-ber related. In the port system, catheter or chamber related complications developedin four cases(19.0%). CONCLUSION: Because PIPS and the port system have relative merits and demetrits, successfulintra-arterial port implantation is possible if equipment is properly selected.

Intra-arterial Port Implantation for Intraarterial Chemoinfusion

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.