CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 39, Issue 11, pp 1629–1635 | Cite as

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

  • Joel Woodley-CookEmail author
  • Emidio Tarulli
  • Kong T. Tan
  • Dheeraj K. Rajan
  • Martin E. Simons
Scientific Paper, Full



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.


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.


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


Peritoneal ports Interventional oncology Surgery 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Fagotti A, Gallotta V, Romano F, et al. Peritoneal carcinosis of ovarian origin. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;2:102–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coccolini F, Campanati L, Catena F, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel in advanced ovarian cancer: a multicenter prospective observational study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014;26(1):54–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spiliotis J, Halkia E, Lianos E, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective randomized phase III study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;22(5):1570–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alberts DS, Liu PY, Hannigan EV, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer. New Eng J Med. 1996;335:1950–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. New Eng J Med. 2006;354:34–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markman M, Markman J, Webster K, et al. Duration of response to second-line, platinum-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: implications for patient management and clinical trial design. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3120–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ozkan O, Akinci D, Gocmen R, Cil B, Ozmen M, Akhan O. Percutaneous placement of peritoneal port-catheter in patients with malignant ascites. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2007;30:232–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenberg S, Courtney A, Nemcek AA Jr, Omary RA. Comparison of percutaneous management techniques for recurrent malignant ascites. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15:1129–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savin MA, Kirsch MJ, Romano WJ, Wang SK, Arpasi PJ, Mazon CD. Peritoneal ports for treatment of intractable ascites. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16:363–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sacks D, McClenny TE, Cardella JF, Lewis CA. Society of Interventional Radiology clinical practice guidelines. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:S199–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orsi F, Della Vigna P, Penco S, Bonomo G, Lovati E, Bellomi M. Percutaneous placement of peritoneal port-catheter in oncologic patients. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:2020–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Almadrones L, Yerys C. Problems associated with the administration of intraperitoneal therapy using the Port-A-Cath system. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1990;17:75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkins J, Sugarbaker PH, Gianola FJ, Myers CE. Technical considerations in the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administered by Tenckhoff catheter. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982;154:858–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greben CR, Goldstein GE, Lovecchio J, et al. Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal ports. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:328–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walker JL, Armstrong DK, Huang HQ, et al. Intraperitoneal catheter outcomes in a phase III trial of intravenous versus intraperitoneal chemotherapy in optimal stage III ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:27–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malmstrom H, Carstensen J, Simonsen E. Experience with implanted subcutaneous ports for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54:27–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landrum LM, Gold MA, Moore KN, Myers TK, McMeekin DS, Walker JL. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a review of complications and completion rates. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:342–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henretta MS, Anderson CL, Angle JF, Duska LR. It’s not just for laparoscopy anymore: use of insufflation under ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance by interventional radiologists for percutaneous placement of intraperitoneal chemotherapy catheters. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:342–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voss D, Hawkins S, Poole G, Marshall M. Radiological versus surgical implantation of first catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:4196–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic ImagingThe Scarborough HospitalScarboroughCanada
  2. 2.Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations