Comparison of Chemoport Implantation in Interventional Radiology Suite vs. Operating Room: Focus on Complications

Background and Objectives: Chemoports are essential for long-term chemotherapy. They are typically inserted either by interventional radiologists in an interventional radiology (IR) suite or by surgeons in the operating room (OR). Although both approaches are widely used, it remains unclear whether the procedural setting affects complication rates. In this study, we compared the safety of chemoport implantation in IR and OR and evaluated the impact of patient-related factors. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 737 adult patients who underwent chemoport placement between January 2021 and December 2023 at a single tertiary institution. Of these, 544 ports were inserted into IR suites and 193 in ORs. All IR procedures used fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance, whereas OR procedures used ultrasound without intraoperative fluoroscopy. Complications were classified as early (≤30 d) or late (>30 d). Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to assess complication-free survival and identify independent predictors. Results: A total of 45 complications (6.1%) occurred, including 25 infections (3.4%), 9 wound dehiscences (1.2%), and 11 malfunctions (1.5%). There were no significant differences in overall, early, or late complication rates between the IR and OR groups (p > 0.05). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated comparable complication-free survival between the groups (log-rank p = 0.285). Cox regression analysis identified no independent predictors of complications, although higher BMI showed a borderline association (adjusted HR, 1.076; 95% CI, 1.000–1.158; p = 0.051). Conclusions: Chemoport implantation performed in IR suites is as safe as that in ORs, with similar early and late complication rates.