Re: fluoroscopy

[Guest guest]

Jessie~

From having read some of your previous postings I believe that you

have every best intention. I feel that you might however be a little

misinformed in one area. This became evident when I read your

posting from November.

I believe that we each have the same goal of giving everyone reading

a whole picture of fills and that is why I am adding my two cents

worth. I am a registered radiologic technologist[RT®] and I assist

in fills everday. My office uses fluoroscopy (live xray) because in

most patients it is the most effective way to find their ports.

Although there is radiation involved (fairly minimal) having the

added assurance that our doctor is watching as they access the port

is more reassuring than if they were to try to just feel their way

into the port. The poke and feel method is alright if the port is

located in the subxyphoid region but otherwise I believe is quite

risky. Quite often we have our patients sent to us by other doctors

who do fills without fluoro because they couldn't find the port.

Many time this is after the patient has been poked- usually multiple

times (I personally saw a patient who had been poked 16 times

without success)! As far as your statement that having fluoro

doesn't help the doctor not pucture the tubing that is not true-

absolutely the only time that I have seen damage done to the port is

when fluoro was not used. The doctor is able to watch what he does-

how is that not a benefit?

Fluoroscopy is an extremely useful tool. If their is a suspected

leak (which unfortunately does happen as you know) we are able to

trace it right then and there- saving the patient any added expense

or travel. I cannot imagine doing fills any other way.

Thanks for letting me put my two cents in!

JB RT®