Functional evaluation of conventional 'Celsite' venous ports versus 'Vortex' ports with a tangential outlet: a prospective randomised pilot study.

GOAL OF WORK: Totally implantable venous access ports are widely accepted in cancer patient treatment, but withdrawal occlusion (WO) can hamper the use of the device. A newly designed Vortex VX port, with a tangential outlet, should allow better clearance of the chamber, thereby reducing occlusion of the device. The present study compared the Vortex port to the classically shaped Celsite port with regards to functional complications.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Two hundred cancer patients were included in a prospective, randomised controlled trial and randomly assigned to the implantation of a Vortex or a Celsite port. Insertion details such as used vein, catheter tip position and infusion or aspiration abilities were recorded. Data were collected concerning ease of access, and functional evaluation was performed each time the port was accessed, regarding the ability to infuse fluids with a syringe and to withdraw blood by measuring the filling time of a Vacutainer blood tube.

MAIN

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients received a Celsite port, and 101 had a Vortex port. Demographic variables and insertion details were comparable in both groups. All functional complications, including WO, total occlusion, sluggish inflow and sluggish withdrawal, were higher in the Celsite group (16.12%) than in the Vortex group (11.36%). This difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that functional problems occurred less frequently in Vortex compared to Celsite ports. Differences were small and not significant, which indicates that functional problems may be related to other factors.