Annals of Surgical Oncology Cite Track
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frank, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, W. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frank, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Reed, W. P.

Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol 4, Issue 7 597-602, Copyright © 1997 by Society of Surgical Oncology


ARTICLES

Fluoroscopy-free placement of standard chest wall subcutaneous chronic venous access devices

J. L. Frank, B. Halla, J. L. Garb and W. P. Reed
Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts 01199, USA.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential benefits of using an electromagnetic detection system to guide the intraoperative placement of chronic venous access devices (CVADs). STUDY DESIGN: An electromagnetic detection system was used to guide catheter placement during 54 procedures. Surgery and radiation exposure times were recorded. An oncology nursing follow-up questionnaire assessed device function. A cost analysis was performed. Outcomes were compared to similar data from a fluoroscopic historical control group. RESULTS: Eight study patients required intraoperative fluoroscopy; in 46 procedures (85%) the electromagnetic detection system was the sole modality employed to guide CVAD placement. One line was subsequently found in the internal mammary vein (2% false negative rate). Mean surgery times for placement of CVADs were 79.5 and 84.5 minutes for the study and control groups (p = NS). Mean radiation exposure rates were 0.16 and 0.86 minutes per patient for the study and control groups (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in device function between groups. Major complications in the study group were rare. Mean cost of CVAD placement was $1993 and $2517 for the study and control groups (p = 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the electromagnetic detection system resulted in accurate placement of chest wall CVADs in the majority of patients. This resulted in significant reductions in radiation exposure and cost of CVAD placement.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.