BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the preferred available option of renal replacement therapy for a significant number of end-stage kidney disease patients. A major limiting factor to the successful continuation of PD is the long-term viability of the PD catheter (PDC). Bedside percutaneous placement of the PDC is not commonly practiced despite published data encouraging use of this technique. Its advantages include faster recovery and avoidance of general anesthesia. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of 313 PDC insertions at our center, comparing all percutaneous PDC insertions between July 1998 and April 2010 (group P, n = 151) with all surgical PDC insertions between January 2003 and April 2010 (group S, n = 162). RESULTS: Compared with group P patients, significantly more group S patients had undergone previous abdominal surgery or PDC insertion (41.8% vs 9.3% and 33.3% vs 3.3% respectively, p = 0.00). More exit-site leaks occurred in group P than in group S (20.5% vs 6.8%, p = 0.002). The overall incidence of peritonitis was higher in group S than in group P (1 episode in 19 catheter-months vs 1 episode in 26 catheter-months, p = 0.017), but the groups showed no significant difference in the peritonitis rate within 1 month of catheter insertion (5% in group P vs 7.4% in group S, p = 0.4) or in poor initial drainage or secondary drainage failure (9.9% vs 11.7%, p = 0.1, and 7.9% vs 12.3%, p = 0.38, for groups P and S respectively).Technical survival at 3 months was significantly better for group P than for group S (86.6% vs 77%, p = 0.037); at 12 months, it was 77.7% and 68.7% respectively (p = 0.126). No life-threatening complications attributable to the insertion of the PDC occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates further encouraging outcomes of percutaneous PDC placement compared with open surgical placement. However, the members of the percutaneous insertion group were primarily a selected subset of patients without prior abdominal surgery or PDC insertion, therefore limiting the comparability of the groups. Studies addressing such confounding factors are required. Local expertise in catheter placement techniques may affect the generalizability of results.
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the preferred available option of renal replacement therapy for a significant number of end-stage kidney diseasepatients. A major limiting factor to the successful continuation of PD is the long-term viability of the PD catheter (PDC). Bedside percutaneous placement of the PDC is not commonly practiced despite published data encouraging use of this technique. Its advantages include faster recovery and avoidance of general anesthesia. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of 313 PDC insertions at our center, comparing all percutaneous PDC insertions between July 1998 and April 2010 (group P, n = 151) with all surgical PDC insertions between January 2003 and April 2010 (group S, n = 162). RESULTS: Compared with group P patients, significantly more group S patients had undergone previous abdominal surgery or PDC insertion (41.8% vs 9.3% and 33.3% vs 3.3% respectively, p = 0.00). More exit-site leaks occurred in group P than in group S (20.5% vs 6.8%, p = 0.002). The overall incidence of peritonitis was higher in group S than in group P (1 episode in 19 catheter-months vs 1 episode in 26 catheter-months, p = 0.017), but the groups showed no significant difference in the peritonitis rate within 1 month of catheter insertion (5% in group P vs 7.4% in group S, p = 0.4) or in poor initial drainage or secondary drainage failure (9.9% vs 11.7%, p = 0.1, and 7.9% vs 12.3%, p = 0.38, for groups P and S respectively).Technical survival at 3 months was significantly better for group P than for group S (86.6% vs 77%, p = 0.037); at 12 months, it was 77.7% and 68.7% respectively (p = 0.126). No life-threatening complications attributable to the insertion of the PDC occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates further encouraging outcomes of percutaneous PDC placement compared with open surgical placement. However, the members of the percutaneous insertion group were primarily a selected subset of patients without prior abdominal surgery or PDC insertion, therefore limiting the comparability of the groups. Studies addressing such confounding factors are required. Local expertise in catheter placement techniques may affect the generalizability of results.
Authors: Ana Figueiredo; Bak-Leong Goh; Sarah Jenkins; David W Johnson; Robert Mactier; Santhanam Ramalakshmi; Badri Shrestha; Dirk Struijk; Martin Wilkie Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Ahmed K Abdel-Aal; Paul Dybbro; Peter Hathaway; Steven Guest; Michael Neuwirth; Venkat Krishnamurthy Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Stephen Haggerty; Scott Roth; Danielle Walsh; Dimitrios Stefanidis; Raymond Price; Robert D Fanelli; Todd Penner; William Richardson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584