L. K. Jablon, K. R. Ugolini and N. C. Nahmias, “Cephalic Vein Cut-Down Verses Percutaneous Access: A Retrospective Study of Complications of Implantable Venous Access Devices,” American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 192, No. 1, 2006, pp. 63-67. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.11.012

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Implantable Venous Access Ports for Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer Patients: Comparison of the Femoral and Subclavian Vein Approaches without Guidance

  AUTHORS: Takeshi Fujita, Masahiro Tanabe, Masatoshi Kato, Taiga Kobayashi, Etsushi Iida, Naofumi Matsunaga

  KEYWORDS: Central Venous Access; Implantable Port; Femoral Vein; Subclavian Vein; Lung Cancer Patients

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Radiology, Vol.2 No.2, June 28, 2012

  ABSTRACT: Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous access ports without guidance in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of total 163 lung cancer patients who underwent implantations of a central venous access port for chemotherapy. 95 patients received the ports by the femoral vein blind-puncture technique and 68patients had the port implanted via the subclavian vein blind-puncture technique. The initial success rate of port implantation and the frequency of occurrence of complications were calculated. Results: The primary success rate of venous port implantation was 93.7% for femoral approach and 88.2% for the subclavian approach respectively (p