Safety and Effectiveness of Percutaneously Inserted Peritoneal Ports Compared to Surgically Inserted Ports in a Retrospective Study of 87 Patients with Ovarian Carcinoma over a 10-Year Period.

PURPOSE: Placement of peritoneal ports has become a favorable technique for direct chemotherapy infusion in treating peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer. We aim to outline an approach to the percutaneous insertion of peritoneal ports and to characterize success and complication rates compared to surgically inserted ports.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was collected from 87 patients who had peritoneal port insertion (28 inserted surgically and 59 percutaneously) for treatment of peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer from July 2004 to July 2014. Complications were classified according to the SIR Clinical Practice Guidelines as major or minor.

RESULTS

Technical success rates for surgically and percutaneously inserted ports were 100 and 96.7 %, respectively (p = 0.44), with the two percutaneous failures successful at a later date. There were no major complications in either group. Minor complication rates for surgically versus percutaneously inserted ports were 46.4 versus 22.0 %, respectively (p = 0.02). The infection rate for surgically inserted versus percutaneously inserted ports was 14.3 and 0 %, respectively (p = 0.002). The relative risk of developing a complication from percutaneous peritoneal port insertion without ascites was 3.4 (p = 0.04). For percutaneously inserted ports, the mean in-room procedure time was 81 ± 1.3 min and mean fluoroscopy time was 5.0 ± 4.5 min.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneously inserted peritoneal ports are a safe alternative to surgically inserted ports, demonstrating similar technical success and lower complication rates.