Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A randomized prospective study of comparison of reservoir ports versus conventional vascular access in advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma cases treated with chemotherapy
  2. M. M. İNAL,
  4. M. Sanci,
  5. Ö. Atli,
  6. C. Nayki,
  7. Y. Yildirim and
  8. Ş. Tinar
  1. Gynecologic Oncology Department, SSK Aegean Maternity Hospital, İzmir, Turkey
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr M. Murat İnal, 669 Sokak Ata Sitesi No. 4/8 Gaziemir-35410, İzmir, Turkey. Email: drmuratinal{at}


Vascular access ports were developed to overcome many of the problems associated with limited peripheral access, combined with the need for frequent venipuncture, in oncology patients receiving long-term intensive therapy. In this study, we compared the effectivity and acceptability of vascular access port with conventional needle application together with complication rates in ovarian cancer patients. Advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma cases under chemotherapy treatment were equally randomized into two groups, implantable vascular access ports applied to one group (22 cases) and conventional vascular access applied to the other (38 cases) as a control group. Anteroposterior thoracic X-rays of implantable port-applied cases were taken before and after the application. Vortex® reservoir ports (Horizon Medical Products, Inc., Manchester, GA) were used in the application to the subclavian vein. Classic peripheral venipuncture method (Medikit®, Mediflon IV cannula with PTFE radiopaque catheter and injection valve, Eastern Medikit Ltd, Gurgaon, Haryana, India) was used in the control group. Vascular accesses of all cases were controlled just after the application, 12 h after the application, and during each drug or intravenous fluid application. Mean port insertion time was 26.3 min. Total port occlusion was observed in two of the port-applied cases (11.7%) and partial port occlusion was observed in five of the port-applied cases (29%). Heparin and saline combination was used in order to open the port tip, in five cases, two with total occlusion and three with partial occlusion. Infection was observed in only one case (5%) to whom appropriate therapy was given, and the port was taken out. Ports of two cases were also taken out because of skin dehiscence. No change in port tip position was observed in any of the cases. Total occlusion was observed in 16 of the 38 cases (42.1%) with conventional vascular access. In 12 cases (31.5%), a need arose to change the conventional vascular access. No vascular access was found in 13 of the 38 cases (34.2%). Application of reservoir ports especially to cases with advanced-stage carcinomas, under chemotherapeutic drug treatment, leads to minimal anxiety for the patient and his/her family and minimal risk of physical trauma to the patient with only one vascular access. Reservoir ports occlude or cause infection to a lesser extent than classic vascular access methods. Occlusion or infection rates of reservoir ports are statistically significant, lower than those of classic venipuncture.

  • conventional vascular access
  • reservoir port
  • vascular access

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.