[摘 要] 目的：探究甘氨胆酸（GCA）对肺腺癌A549细胞移植瘤小鼠放射治疗敏感性的影响及其机制。方法：建立A549人肺腺癌细胞裸鼠移植瘤模型，随机分为移植瘤对照组（对照组）、GCA组、放疗组（RT组）和GCA + 放疗组（GCA + RT组）。RT组和GCA + RT组接受单次10  Gy照射，GCA组及GCA + RT组连续7 d每日灌胃GCA 280  mg/kg。间隔2 d测量1次移植瘤体积，末次给药后处死小鼠并取移植瘤组织，检测移植瘤组织中超氧化物歧化酶（SOD）与谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶（GSH-Px）活性，qPCR法和WB法分别检测放疗关键基因（MCM6、ITGA6、CASP3等）mRNA和蛋白表达水平，H-E染色观察移植瘤组织的形态变化。通过GEO（GSE276500、GSE294906、GSE218171）及TCGA数据库数据验证放疗关键基因。结果：GCA单用对瘤体生长有一定抑制作用，但联合放疗的GCA + RT组相比单纯放疗组表现出放疗抵抗的效应（P < 0.05）。GCA处理显著提高移植瘤组织SOD活性（P < 0.01）、降低GSH-Px活性（P < 0.01），提示GCA可改变移植瘤抗氧化酶平衡，减弱放疗诱导的氧化应激。GCA干预上调移植瘤组织中MCM6与ITGA6 mRNA表达、下调CASP3 mRNA表达（均P < 0.05）。GCA + RT组移植瘤组织中的MCM6蛋白表达显著高于对照组（P < 0.05）。H-E染色显示，GCA组部分瘤组织坏死，而GCA + RT组坏死组织面积较RT组有所缩小。GEO和TCGA数据库验证支持MCM6、ITGA6高表达与放疗抵抗和预后不良相关。结论：GCA通过增强SOD活性、降低GSH-Px活性并上调ITGA6、MCM6的表达改变氧化应激与关键信号网络，从而削弱A549移植瘤对放疗的敏感性。

Objective:To analyze the efficacy of phantom-less quantitative computer tomography (PL-QCT) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods:From October 2021 to October 2023, a total of 1 248 patients with lumbar degenerative disease who did not receive anti-osteoporosis treatment in the Department of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. There were 520 males and 728 females, aged 62.31±9.37 years (range, 40-87 years), height 1.66±0.08 m (range, 1.43-1.89 m), weight 69.04±8.27 kg (range, 49-93 kg). The mean body mass index was 26.11±3.67 kg/m 2 (range, 14.40-37.11 kg/m 2). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and PL-QCT were used to diagnose osteoporosis, and the detection rates of the two diagnostic methods were compared. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was drawn, the area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI), sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results:Among 1 248 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, 626 (50.2%) were diagnosed as osteoporosis by PL-QCT, 423(33.9%) were diagnosed by spine DXA, 488(39.1%) were diagnosed by hip DXA and 539 patients(43.2%) were diagnosed by dual-site DXA. The detection rate of osteoporosis of PL-QCT was higher than that of spine DXA (χ 2=193.557, P<0.001), hip DXA (χ 2=322.201, P<0.001) and dual-site DXA (χ 2=94.683, P<0.001), and the difference was statistically significant. Taking the diagnostic results of spinal DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 81%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.82(0.79, 0.85). Taking the diagnostic results of hip DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 55%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.75(0.71, 0.78). Taking the diagnostic results of two-site DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 75%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.81(0.78, 0.83). Conclusion:Compared with DXA, PL-QCT has a higher detection rate of osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease and good diagnostic efficacy.

Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:The data of patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent LLIF or PLIF from February 2019 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 30 patients in the LLIF group, 10 males and 20 females, aged 62.7±5.6 years (range, 53-74 years), including 21 cases of single segment and 9 cases of double segment. There were 46 patients in the PLIF group, including 20 males and 26 females, aged 63.2±8.4 years (range, 43-75 years), 40 cases of single segment and 6 cases of double segment. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results:All patients were followed up for an average of 21.3±6.4 months (range, 12-32 months). The intraoperative blood loss in the LLIF group was 112.2±76.9 ml, which was significantly lower than 193.9±88.2 ml in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). The VAS scores of back pain and leg pain after operation were significantly lower than those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in back pain VAS scores at preoperative, 6 months postoperative, and final follow-up ( P>0.05); the back pain VAS score at 1 month postoperatively in the LLIF group was 1.6±1.2, which was less than 2.8±0.7 in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in leg pain VAS scores at preoperative, 1 month postoperative, and 6 months postoperative ( P>0.05); the leg pain VAS score at the final follow-up in the LLIF group was 1.2±1.5, which was smaller than 1.8±1.0 in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). The postoperative ODI was smaller than the preoperative one in both groups, and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05); the preoperative, 1-month postoperative, 6-month postoperative, and final follow-up ODIs in the LLIF group were 45.7%±16.0%, 17.9%±12.0%, 16.2%±11.6%, and 15.7%±11.7%, and those in the PLIF group were 47.9%±15.4%, 20.1%±9.3%, 16.9%±10.6%, and 14.6%±11.0% in the PLIF group, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The preoperative intervertebral space height in the LLIF group was 10.6±2.0 mm, which was smaller than that in the PLIF group 11.8±2.2 mm ( P<0.05). The intervertebral space heights in the immediate postoperative period and at the final follow-up were 13.3±2.3 mm and 12.3±2.2 mm in the LLIF group and 13.7±1.7 mm and 13.0±1.9 mm in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). The preoperative intervertebral foraminal height in the LLIF group was 18.0±3.2 mm, which was smaller than that of 19.7±2.4 mm in the PLIF group ( P<0.05); the intervertebral foraminal heights in the immediate postoperative period and at the final follow-up were 21.4±2.5 mm and 20.2±2.4 mm in the LLIF group, and in the PLIF group were 20.7±2.4 mm and 19.7±2.6 mm in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). In the LLIF group, 2 cases had femoral nerve injury and 2 cases had transient back pain after operation. There were 2 cases of cerebrospinal fluid leakage, 1 case of screw loosening, and 2 cases of deep vein thrombosis in the PLIF group. In the PLIF group, 2 patients underwent revision, including 1 case due to cage displacement and 1 case due to screw malposition. The fusion settling rate was 21% (8/39) in the LLIF group and 12% (6/52) in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Both LLIF and PLIF can effectively restore the intervertebral height, improve the lumbar function and the symptoms of back and leg pain in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.

Objectives:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion(LLIF)combined with unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)versus bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease(LDD).Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 65 patients with LDD who underwent single-level LLIF between January 2019 and December 2021.14 patients received UPS fixation(UPS group)and 51 received BPS fixation(BPS group).The operative time,hospitalization cost,and imaging parameters including disc height(DH),foraminal height(FH),lumbar lordosis(LL),segmental lordosis(SL),axial central canal cross-sectional area(CCA),midsagittal canal diameter(CD),ligamentum flavum area(LFA),and ligamentum flavum thickness(LFT),as well as fusion rate,complication rate,and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.Results:The UPS group was shorter in operative time(80.64±10.87min vs 131.57±11.37min)and lower in hospitalization cost(86463.14±1889.54 yuan vs 101213.06±4512.54 yuan)compared with the BPS group(P＜0.05).Both groups showed significant improvements in DH,FH,SL,CD,and CCA after operation,with no significant differences between groups(P＞0.05).The immediate postoperative thickness of the right ligamentum flavum was significantly lower in the UPS group(2.28±0.71mm vs 2.67±0.49mm,P=0.019).The fusion rates were 85.7％in the UPS group and 94.1％in the BPS group,with no statistically significant difference(P=0.292).There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups(28.6％vs 23.5％,P=0.733).Conclusions:Single-level LLIF combined with UPS fixation for treating LDD provides comparable imaging improvements,clinical outcomes,and complications control to BPS fixation,while offering the advantages of reduced operative time and lower hospitalization costs,supporting its clinical feasibility.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of orexin-A-mediated regulation of ionotropic glutamate receptors for promoting motor function recovery in rats with spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Thirty-six newborn SD rats (aged 7-14 days) were randomized into 6 groups (n=6), including a normal control group, a sham-operated group, and 4 SCI groups with daily intrathecal injection of saline, DNQX, orexin-A, or orexin-A+DNQX for 3 consecutive days after PCI. Motor function of the rats were evaluated using blood-brain barrier (BBB) score and inclined plane test 1 day before and at 1, 3, and 7 days after SCI. For patch-clamp experiment, spinal cord slices from newborn rats in the control, sham-operated, SCI, and SCI+orexin groups were prepared, and ventral horn neurons were acutely isolated to determine the reversal potential and dynamic indicators of glutamate receptor-mediated currents under glutamate perfusion. RESULTS: At 3 and 7 days after SCI, the orexin-A-treated rats showed significantly higher BBB scores and grip tilt angles than those with other interventions. Compared with those treated with DNQX alone, the rats receiving the combined treatment with orexin and DNQX had significantly higher BBB scores and grip tilt angles on day 7 after PCI. In the patch-clamp experiment, the ventral horn neurons from SCI rat models exhibited obviously higher reversal potential and greater rise slope of glutamate current with shorter decay time than those from sham-operated and orexin-treated rats. CONCLUSIONS Orexin-A promotes motor function recovery in rats after SCI possibly by improving the function of the ionotropic glutamate receptors.
Animals ; Spinal Cord Injuries/drug therapy* ; Rats ; Rats, Sprague-Dawley ; Receptors, Ionotropic Glutamate/metabolism* ; Recovery of Function/drug effects* ; Orexins/pharmacology* ; Male ; Female ; Animals, Newborn ; Neuropeptides/pharmacology* ; Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins/pharmacology*

Objective:To analyze the efficacy of phantom-less quantitative computer tomography (PL-QCT) for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.Methods:From October 2021 to October 2023, a total of 1 248 patients with lumbar degenerative disease who did not receive anti-osteoporosis treatment in the Department of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. There were 520 males and 728 females, aged 62.31±9.37 years (range, 40-87 years), height 1.66±0.08 m (range, 1.43-1.89 m), weight 69.04±8.27 kg (range, 49-93 kg). The mean body mass index was 26.11±3.67 kg/m 2 (range, 14.40-37.11 kg/m 2). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and PL-QCT were used to diagnose osteoporosis, and the detection rates of the two diagnostic methods were compared. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was drawn, the area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI), sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results:Among 1 248 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, 626 (50.2%) were diagnosed as osteoporosis by PL-QCT, 423(33.9%) were diagnosed by spine DXA, 488(39.1%) were diagnosed by hip DXA and 539 patients(43.2%) were diagnosed by dual-site DXA. The detection rate of osteoporosis of PL-QCT was higher than that of spine DXA (χ 2=193.557, P<0.001), hip DXA (χ 2=322.201, P<0.001) and dual-site DXA (χ 2=94.683, P<0.001), and the difference was statistically significant. Taking the diagnostic results of spinal DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 81%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.82(0.79, 0.85). Taking the diagnostic results of hip DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 55%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.75(0.71, 0.78). Taking the diagnostic results of two-site DXA for osteoporosis as a reference, the ROC curve of PL-QCT for the diagnosis of osteoporosis showed a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 75%, and an AUC and 95% CI of 0.81(0.78, 0.83). Conclusion:Compared with DXA, PL-QCT has a higher detection rate of osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease and good diagnostic efficacy.

Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.Methods:The data of patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent LLIF or PLIF from February 2019 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 30 patients in the LLIF group, 10 males and 20 females, aged 62.7±5.6 years (range, 53-74 years), including 21 cases of single segment and 9 cases of double segment. There were 46 patients in the PLIF group, including 20 males and 26 females, aged 63.2±8.4 years (range, 43-75 years), 40 cases of single segment and 6 cases of double segment. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), intervertebral space height, intervertebral foramen height and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results:All patients were followed up for an average of 21.3±6.4 months (range, 12-32 months). The intraoperative blood loss in the LLIF group was 112.2±76.9 ml, which was significantly lower than 193.9±88.2 ml in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). The VAS scores of back pain and leg pain after operation were significantly lower than those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in back pain VAS scores at preoperative, 6 months postoperative, and final follow-up ( P>0.05); the back pain VAS score at 1 month postoperatively in the LLIF group was 1.6±1.2, which was less than 2.8±0.7 in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in leg pain VAS scores at preoperative, 1 month postoperative, and 6 months postoperative ( P>0.05); the leg pain VAS score at the final follow-up in the LLIF group was 1.2±1.5, which was smaller than 1.8±1.0 in the PLIF group ( P<0.05). The postoperative ODI was smaller than the preoperative one in both groups, and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05); the preoperative, 1-month postoperative, 6-month postoperative, and final follow-up ODIs in the LLIF group were 45.7%±16.0%, 17.9%±12.0%, 16.2%±11.6%, and 15.7%±11.7%, and those in the PLIF group were 47.9%±15.4%, 20.1%±9.3%, 16.9%±10.6%, and 14.6%±11.0% in the PLIF group, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The preoperative intervertebral space height in the LLIF group was 10.6±2.0 mm, which was smaller than that in the PLIF group 11.8±2.2 mm ( P<0.05). The intervertebral space heights in the immediate postoperative period and at the final follow-up were 13.3±2.3 mm and 12.3±2.2 mm in the LLIF group and 13.7±1.7 mm and 13.0±1.9 mm in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). The preoperative intervertebral foraminal height in the LLIF group was 18.0±3.2 mm, which was smaller than that of 19.7±2.4 mm in the PLIF group ( P<0.05); the intervertebral foraminal heights in the immediate postoperative period and at the final follow-up were 21.4±2.5 mm and 20.2±2.4 mm in the LLIF group, and in the PLIF group were 20.7±2.4 mm and 19.7±2.6 mm in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). In the LLIF group, 2 cases had femoral nerve injury and 2 cases had transient back pain after operation. There were 2 cases of cerebrospinal fluid leakage, 1 case of screw loosening, and 2 cases of deep vein thrombosis in the PLIF group. In the PLIF group, 2 patients underwent revision, including 1 case due to cage displacement and 1 case due to screw malposition. The fusion settling rate was 21% (8/39) in the LLIF group and 12% (6/52) in the PLIF group ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Both LLIF and PLIF can effectively restore the intervertebral height, improve the lumbar function and the symptoms of back and leg pain in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.

Objectives:To evaluate the clinical efficacy of single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion(LLIF)combined with unilateral pedicle screw(UPS)versus bilateral pedicle screw(BPS)fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease(LDD).Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 65 patients with LDD who underwent single-level LLIF between January 2019 and December 2021.14 patients received UPS fixation(UPS group)and 51 received BPS fixation(BPS group).The operative time,hospitalization cost,and imaging parameters including disc height(DH),foraminal height(FH),lumbar lordosis(LL),segmental lordosis(SL),axial central canal cross-sectional area(CCA),midsagittal canal diameter(CD),ligamentum flavum area(LFA),and ligamentum flavum thickness(LFT),as well as fusion rate,complication rate,and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.Results:The UPS group was shorter in operative time(80.64±10.87min vs 131.57±11.37min)and lower in hospitalization cost(86463.14±1889.54 yuan vs 101213.06±4512.54 yuan)compared with the BPS group(P＜0.05).Both groups showed significant improvements in DH,FH,SL,CD,and CCA after operation,with no significant differences between groups(P＞0.05).The immediate postoperative thickness of the right ligamentum flavum was significantly lower in the UPS group(2.28±0.71mm vs 2.67±0.49mm,P=0.019).The fusion rates were 85.7％in the UPS group and 94.1％in the BPS group,with no statistically significant difference(P=0.292).There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups(28.6％vs 23.5％,P=0.733).Conclusions:Single-level LLIF combined with UPS fixation for treating LDD provides comparable imaging improvements,clinical outcomes,and complications control to BPS fixation,while offering the advantages of reduced operative time and lower hospitalization costs,supporting its clinical feasibility.

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.