[Clinical application of intraperitoneal chemotherapy ports in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases].

Objective: To evaluate the clinical value and safety of an intraperitoneal chemotherapy port technique in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases undergoing intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Methods: This was a retrospective, descriptive case analysis. From November 2022 to October 2024, patients diagnosed with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases at Wuxi Branch of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine with an expected survival >3 months, underwent laparoscopic exploration combined with implantation of an intraperitoneal chemotherapy port [PORT-A-CATH II system (Model 21-4055-24)] implantation. The procedure was as follows: (1) after laparoscopic exploration, a 4-cm skin incision was made at a predetermined site and a subcutaneous pocket created by dissecting to the muscle fascia and removing subcutaneous fat as needed to position the port septum 0.5-1.0 cm from the skin surface; (2) under direct laparoscopic visualization, the abdominal cavity was punctured and a guidewire inserted, followed by an 8.5 Fr sheath, through which a catheter with three trimmed side holes was placed after removal of the sheath; (3) the catheter length in the abdominal cavity was adjusted to 25-30 cm and the catheter trimmed, and connected to the port base, ensuring it extended beyond the connector's visible hole; (4) the whole port was placed within the subcutaneous pocket, and non-absorbable sutures used to create a double purse-string suture at the catheter's abdominal entry, forming an anti-reflux ring; (5) non-absorbable sutures were used to securely fix the port to the fascia through its four base holes and the exposed catheter segments on the fascia sutured and buried; (6) patency was confirmed by injecting saline and followed by intermittent skin closure provided there was no bleeding; and (7) the catheter tip was positioned in the pelvic cavity under laparoscopic guidance. Postoperatively, the patients underwent normothermic intraperitoneal and systemic treatment. The port infusion protocol involved disinfecting the skin (>10 cm diameter) around the port, confirming the puncture site, inserting a Huber needle vertically at 90° to the port base, infusing 100 mL saline to ensure patency, followed by continuous infusion of 1000 mL paclitaxel solution, and sealing with 20 mL saline before removing the needle. No saline flushing was required between chemotherapy infusions. The primary outcomes were the incidence and management of complications post-port implantation. Results: The study cohort comprised 225 patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases. Using standardized port implantation and postoperative puncture procedures, the complication rate during follow-up was 14.2% (32/225), including effusion in 14 patients (6.2%), port infection in 10 (4.4%), incision dehiscence in four (1.8%), port inversion in two (0.9%), hematoma in one (0.4%), and catheter rupture in one (0.4%). Seventy-five percent (24/32) of patients with complications recovered and continued using the port after conservative treatments (e. g., aspiration of effusions, antibiotic therapy, incision management), whereas the remaining 25.0% (8/32) with complications required surgical removal of the port because the treatment was ineffective. The presence of preoperative ascites (P=0.019) and peritoneal cancer index score>15 (P=0.038) were significantly associated with development of complications. Conclusions: Our standardized procedure for intraperitoneal chemotherapy port implantation is safe and feasible for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases, having a low overall complication rate. Most complications can be successfully managed with conservative treatment, the device thus providing reliable support for intraperitoneal chemotherapy.