Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 729–736 | Cite as

A simple modified open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion procedure reduces the need for secondary surgery

  • Yingqin Li
  • Ye Zhu
  • Zibin Liang
  • Xiaobin Zheng
  • Huitao Zhang
  • Weiping ZhuEmail author
Nephrology - Original Paper
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the efficacy of a modified peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion technique for reducing the incidence of mechanical complications.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data of 346 patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion at our peritoneal dialysis center. The traditional procedure was performed in 157 patients (group A) and the modified procedure in 189 patients (group B). The double-polyester-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheter was used in all patients.

Results

At the end of 1 year, tunnel inflammation was more common in group A (21 patients after 0.011 patient-months follow-up versus 10 patients in group B after 0.007 patient-months of follow-up; p = 0.009). Technical survival rate of the catheter was significantly higher in group B (97.35% in group B vs. 89.81% in group A; p = 0.005). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (4.5% in group A vs. 3.2% in group B; p = 0.532). Postoperative mechanical complications were also higher in group A (32 patients [20.4%] in group A vs. 3 patients [1.6%] in group B; p < 0.001). The incidences of complications such as hernia, dialysis fluid leakage, hemorrhage, incision infection, and prolapse of the polyester cuff were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion

The simple modified peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion procedure decreases the occurrence of catheter migration andomental encapsulation and improves the technical survival rate of the catheter.

Keywords

Catheter Chronic renal failure Mechanical complication Peritoneal dialysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our operation team and PD nursing team for their able assistance. This work was supported by Guangdong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 2016A030310193).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    McCartan D et al (2015) Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion in a Northern Ireland district general hospital. Ulster Med J 84(3):166–170Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gultekin FA et al (2013) Our long-term results of Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheters placement via laparoscopic preperitoneal tunneling technique. Semin Dial 26(3):349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia FT et al (1994) Complications of permanent catheter implantation for peritoneal dialysis: incidence and risk factors. Adv Perit Dial 10:206–209Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E D et al (2009) Spring-back deformation in tube bending. Int J Miner Metall Mater 16(2):177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahmed GMS et al (2014) Experimental evaluation of springback in mild steel and its validation using LS-DYNA. Procedia Mater Sci 6:1376–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang L et al (2011) Low-site peritoneal catheter implantation decreases tip migration and omental wrapping. Perit Dial Int 31(2):202–204Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiang C et al (2014) A modified open surgery technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement decreases catheter malfunction. Perit Dial Int 34(4):358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crabtree JH, Chow K (2017) Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion. Semin Nephrol 37(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kume H et al (2011) Peritoneal fixation prevents dislocation of Tenckhoff catheter. Perit Dial Int 31(6):694–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagen SM et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xie H et al (2012) Laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol 13:69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strippoli GF et al (2004) Catheter-related interventions to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Soc Nephrol 15(10):2735–2746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yip T, Lui SL, Lo WK (2013) The choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation technique by nephrologists. Int J Nephrol 2013:940106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jwo SC et al (2010) Prospective randomized study for comparison of open surgery with laparoscopic-assisted placement of Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter—a single center experience and literature review. J Surg Res 159(1):489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peppelenbosch A et al (2008) Peritoneal dialysis catheter placement technique and complications. NDT Plus 1(Suppl 4):iv23–iv28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Hwiesh AK (2014) Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion by a nephrologist: a new, simple, and safe technique. Perit Dial Int 34(2):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chula DC et al (2014) Percutaneous and surgical insertion of peritoneal catheter in patients starting in chronic dialysis therapy: a comparative study. Semin Dial 27(3):E32–E37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zappacosta AR, Perras ST, Closkey GM (1991) Seldinger technique for Tenckhoff catheter placement. ASAIO Trans 37(1):13–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hagen SM et al (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complication rate and catheter survival. Kidney Int 85(4):920–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xie J et al (2011) Coiled versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 58(6):946–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson DW et al (2006) A randomized controlled trial of coiled versus straight swan-neck Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 48(5):812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergamin B et al (2010) Finding the right position: a three-year, single-center experience with the “self-locating” catheter. Perit Dial Int 30(5):519–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stegmayr BG et al (2015) Few outflow problems with a self-locating catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(48):e2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Paolo N et al (2004) The self-locating catheter: clinical experience and follow-up. Perit Dial Int 24(4):359–364Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moreiras-Plaza M et al (2014) New peritoneal catheters: new catheter problems? Perit Dial Int 34(5):556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Minguela I et al (2001) Lower malfunction rate with self-locating catheters. Perit Dial Int 21(Suppl 3):S209–S212Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nephrology DepartmentThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityZhuhaiChina
  2. 2.Radiology DepartmentThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityZhuhaiChina
  3. 3.Radiotherapy DepartmentThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityZhuhaiChina
  4. 4.Respiration DepartmentThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen UniversityZhuhaiChina

Personalised recommendations