3.8 Article

Long loop technique with bifemoral access as salvage technique for repositioning of dislodged port catheters

期刊

CVIR ENDOVASCULAR
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s42155-022-00341-y

关键词

Port catheter dislodgement; Port catheter repositioning; Salvage technique; Transfermoral

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Long loop technique is an effective approach for repositioning dislodged catheters, especially when traditional methods are not feasible due to narrowing or thrombosis.
Background: Repositioning of dislocated port systems' catheters is usually performed with a pigtail catheter and/or a goose snare. In case of an inaccessible port catheter tip due to thrombosis, this classic approach may be not successful. For these cases, we describe a long loop bailout technique with bifemoral access. Technique: Via a right transfemoral access, a first attempt to reposition the dislodged port catheter using pigtail catheter and goose snare was performed. After an unsuccessful attempt and delineation of thrombosis of the catheter tip, the contralateral femoral vein was subsequently punctured and a sheath was placed. Through both vascular sheaths, pigtail catheter and goose wire were advanced distally to the catheter. The guidewire in the pigtail catheter was snared, thus creating a Long loop configuration. Pulling down both catheters simultaneously with improved stability allowed to detach the catheter tip from the vessel wall and replacement into the superior vena cava was possible. Refinement of catheter tip position was done using the goose snare. This technique was applied on 5 patients with dislodged port catheters in the jugular vein (2/5), the innominate vein (1/5), the subclavian vein (1/5) and the azygos vein (1/5) with a technical success of 100%. No complications were observed. Conclusion: The Long loop technique can be used as salvage approach to reposition a dislodged catheter in case of failure with pigtail catheter and goose snare.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据