PURPOSE: To compare the techniques and complications of intra-arterial port implantation for intra-arterialchemotherapy between PIPS and the port system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For intra-arterial port implantation, 27cases in 27 patients were retrospectively evalu-ated using PIPS(PIPS-200, William Cook Europe, Denmark) while for21 cases in 19 patients a pediatric ve-nous port system(Port-A-Cath, 5.8F, SIMS Deltec, U.S.A.) was used. Allintra-arterial port implantation was performed percuteneously in an angiographic ward. Hepatocellular carcinomawas diagnosed in 18 patients and hepatic metastasis in 16. Peripheral cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic gastric,ovarian, renal cell and colon carcinoma were included. We compared the techniques and complications between PIPSand the port system. The follow up period ranged from 23 to 494(mean, 163) days in PIPS and from 12 to 431(mean,150) days in the port system. RESULTS: In all cases, intra-arterial port implantations were technicallysuccessful. Port catheter tips were locat-ed in the common hepatic artery(n=8), proper hepatic artery(n=7), righthepatic artery(n=5), gastroduodenal artery(n=2), left hepatic artery(n=1), pancreaticoduodenal artery(n=1),inferior mesenteric artery(n=1), lum-bar artery(n=1), and renal artery(n=1) in PIPS, and in the proper hepaticartery(n=6), gastroduodenal artery(n=6), common hepatic artery(n=3), right hepatic artery(n=4), inferiormesenteric artery(n=1), and in-ternal iliac artery(n=1) in the port system. Port chambers were buried ininfrainguinal subcutaneous tissue. Using PIPS, complications developed in seven cases(25.9%) and of these, four(57.1%) were catheter or cham-ber related. In the port system, catheter or chamber related complications developedin four cases(19.0%). CONCLUSION: Because PIPS and the port system have relative merits and demetrits, successfulintra-arterial port implantation is possible if equipment is properly selected.