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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
McCartan D et al (2015) Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion in a Northern Ireland district general hospital. Ulster Med J 84(3):166–170
Gultekin FA et al (2013) Our long-term results of Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheters placement via laparoscopic preperitoneal tunneling technique. Semin Dial 26(3):349–354
Garcia FT et al (1994) Complications of permanent catheter implantation for peritoneal dialysis: incidence and risk factors. Adv Perit Dial 10:206–209
E D et al (2009) Spring-back deformation in tube bending. Int J Miner Metall Mater 16(2):177–183
Ahmed GMS et al (2014) Experimental evaluation of springback in mild steel and its validation using LS-DYNA. Procedia Mater Sci 6:1376–1385
Zhang L et al (2011) Low-site peritoneal catheter implantation decreases tip migration and omental wrapping. Perit Dial Int 31(2):202–204
Jiang C et al (2014) A modified open surgery technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement decreases catheter malfunction. Perit Dial Int 34(4):358–367
Crabtree JH, Chow K (2017) Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion. Semin Nephrol 37(1):17–29
Kume H et al (2011) Peritoneal fixation prevents dislocation of Tenckhoff catheter. Perit Dial Int 31(6):694–697
Hagen SM et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56351
Xie H et al (2012) Laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol 13:69
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):2735–2746
Yip T, Lui SL, Lo WK (2013) The choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation technique by nephrologists. Int J Nephrol 2013:940106
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):489–496
Peppelenbosch A et al (2008) Peritoneal dialysis catheter placement technique and complications. NDT Plus 1(Suppl 4):iv23–iv28
Al-Hwiesh AK (2014) Percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion by a nephrologist: a new, simple, and safe technique. Perit Dial Int 34(2):204–211
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–E37
Zappacosta AR, Perras ST, Closkey GM (1991) Seldinger technique for Tenckhoff catheter placement. ASAIO Trans 37(1):13–15
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):920–932
Xie J et al (2011) Coiled versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 58(6):946–955
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):812–821
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):519–523
Stegmayr BG et al (2015) Few outflow problems with a self-locating catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(48):e2083
Di Paolo N et al (2004) The self-locating catheter: clinical experience and follow-up. Perit Dial Int 24(4):359–364
Moreiras-Plaza M et al (2014) New peritoneal catheters: new catheter problems? Perit Dial Int 34(5):556–561
Minguela I et al (2001) Lower malfunction rate with self-locating catheters. Perit Dial Int 21(Suppl 3):S209–S212
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Zhu, Y., Liang, Z. et al. A simple modified open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion procedure reduces the need for secondary surgery. Int Urol Nephrol 51, 729–736 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02101-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02101-9