Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00272623

Seldinger Technique Versus Venous Cut-Down for Placement of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports

Since the first placement of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) by Niederhuber et al in 1982 its application to provide long-term central venous access has dramatically increased. These systems have dramatically simplified the administration of chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition as well as the repetitive collection of blood samples.

Initial retrospective studies have focused on the complications associated with different implantation techniques. Subsequently, major attention has been payed to the comparison of distinct types of TIVAPs. To date a variety of approved port systems are available. These devices can be either implanted using the Seldinger technique or by venous cut-down of the cephalic vein Despite the global use of these established implantation procedures prospective, randomized trials directly comparing these two approaches are still lacking. So, the choice, which technique to use is left to the surgeon's preference.

The aim of this study is to directly compare the Seldinger technique versus cephalic vein cut down for placement of TIVAPs in respect of implantation success rate, operation time and perioperative morbidity.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Dept. of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery

Zurich, Canton of Zurich, 8091, Switzerland

About this study

Since the first placement of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) by Niederhuber et al in 1982 its application to provide long-term central venous access has dramatically increased. These systems have dramatically simplified the administration of chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition as well as the repetitive collection of blood samples.

Initial retrospective studies have focused on the complications associated with different implantation techniques. Subsequently, major attention has been payed to the comparison of distinct types of TIVAPs. To date a variety of approved port systems are available. These devices can be either implanted using the Seldinger technique or by venous cut-down of the cephalic vein Despite the global use of these established implantation procedures prospective, randomized trials directly comparing these two approaches are still lacking. So, the choice, which technique to use is left to the surgeon's preference.

The aim of this study is to directly compare the Seldinger technique versus cephalic vein cut down for placement of TIVAPs in respect of implantation success rate, operation time and perioperative morbidity.

After an informed consent has been obtained, patients will be randomized as follows: By means of sealed envelopes a total of 152 patients will be allocated either to TIVAP placement using Seldinger technique or by venous cut down (n= 76 in each group).

Operations will be performed in local or general anaesthesia either on an outpatient basis or via 24h-admission. Changes of technique due to catheter implantation failure, operation time and intraoperative complications will be assessed during the procedure. Postoperative examination will be standardized in both groups, i.e. chest radiography (to confirm catheter placement and to exclude pneumothorax) as well as final clinical examination at discharge or before patient transfer.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Oncological patients with an indication for a long-term parenteral treatment
  • Age > 18 years
  • Elective operations only

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with limited German proficiency (informed consent not possible)
  • Anticoagulation (INR >2.5), coagulopathy, Tc<60'000/mI
  • Bilateral intervention/irradiation on shoulder, clavicle or breast

Treatment and study plan

Seldinger technique or venous cut-down for port placement

Procedure

Primary outcomes

  1. Implantation success rate

Secondary outcomes

  1. Amount of puncture attempts needed (new perforation of the skin)

  2. Intraoperative change of surgical technique

  3. Operation time

  4. Intra-/perioperative complications (arterial puncture, major arrhythmia, pneumothorax, haemorrhage/haematoma)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Zurich

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Seldinger Technique Versus Venous Cut-Down for Placement of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports

Important dates

Study start
2006
Primary completion
2008
Study completion
2008
First posted
Jan 6, 2006
Registry last updated
Jun 3, 2009

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.