Forum topic

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
daylily
CT injectable ports versus non-powered (experience with problems or literature on the subject)

I have been asked by a physician if there is any evidence showing problems with CT injectable ports versus non-CT injectable ones.  I know that in the evolution of these devices they are relatively new in comparison so I haven't heard of any literature discussing problems.

Does anyone have any knowledge of such information? 

lynncrni
Search this forum for

Search this forum for previous discussions about this. I have seen pictures of these ports eroding through the skin with the port designed with the raised bumps on the rim of the reservoir. These bumps were to identify that this was a power-injectable port upon palpation but the unintended consequences was skin erosion. I think this was a Bard power injectable port. This problem is relatively new, so I would not expect any publications about it yet. Lynn

Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, NPD-BC, CRNI

Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.

PO Box 10

Milner, GA 30257

Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com

Office Phone 770-358-7861

daylily
Lynn, Most recently we have

Lynn,

Most recently we have seen patients with two different port manufacturers suffer port erosions.  Looking into their chart for common denominators was very difficult.  It seems that malnutrition was the biggest common factor.  This is so difficult as depth of subcutaneous tissue was not known when the port was placed.  Many variables..... Before a decision is made as to which manufacturer we choose, physicians want more answers.  I'm just not sure we can provide them what they are looking for.

Donna Fritz
port erosion

If port erosion is the issue you're addressing, malnutrition probably is the key.  Yes, there have been reports of the "palpation points" on the septum surface of the Bard PowerPort eroding through the skin, but I don't know the clinical details (malnutrition?).  Some of the other power injectable ports on the market have essentially no redesign in the shape of the port body that would prompt new erosion situations.  The connections and the port catheter itself would seem to be the main areas of focus for manufacturers to assure no failure with increased pressures.  I have never seen in my clinical practice any erosion of a port . . . and I've seen my share of malnourished patients in the oncology population I deal with.  Where, exactly, are you seeing the erosion start in relation to the port body? 

lynncrni
Connection of port body and catheter

One other comment about this connection - the inserter must become familiar with each new port being placed. Do not assume that all ports made by the same manufacturer use the same method of connecting the catheter to the port body. I have seen many physicians who think this, pay no attention to the correct connection method and end up with embolized catheters because the connection was not made correctly. Lynn

Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, NPD-BC, CRNI

Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.

PO Box 10

Milner, GA 30257

Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com

Office Phone 770-358-7861

daylily
The patient's skin was so

The patient's skin was so thin that the septum and reservoir was clearly visible and the skin began to erode.  Certainly when accessing we choose to select different insertion areas within the septum.  This has happened to two different manufacturer's ports.

lynncrni
Not caused by the product

Then I would say this problem is a patient-specific issue and is not caused by the specific brand or design of the product. It sounds like the inserter did not create the port pocket deep enough or there was such loss of subq tissue that it was impossible to implant it any deeper. Lynn

Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, NPD-BC, CRNI

Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.

PO Box 10

Milner, GA 30257

Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com

Office Phone 770-358-7861

Log in or register to post comments