A Technique to Address Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Malfunction

Stucky, Chee Chee H.; Mason, Mark C.; Madura, James A.; Harold, Kristi L.

doi:10.4293/108680810x12924466008808

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a few laparoscopic techniques to do this which some authors recommend to reduce the possibility of catheter kinking and migration . Stucky et al described a successful catheter repositioning by attaching the tip of the catheter to a testicular prosthesis as an additional weight .…”

Section: Late Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Management of Complications with Peritoneal Dialysis

Ratajczak

Lange-Ratajczak

Bobkiewicz

et al. 2016

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report reviews the most common surgical interventions and complications of chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Based on the current knowledge as well as our experience we detail the role of these surgical procedures. We supplement the reported knowledge in the field with our own experience in this area. The areas discussed include early complications such as surgical wound hemorrhage, bleeding from the catheter, intestinal perforation and urinary bladder perforation, dialysate leakage through the wound, as well as late complications including catheter kinking or occlusion, retention of fluid in the peritoneal recess, hernias and hydrothorax, and encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. We also briefly cover the surgical aspects of exit-site infection and peritonitis. An understanding by nephrologists of the role for surgical intervention in PD patients will improve their care and outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Late Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Management of Complications with Peritoneal Dialysis

Ratajczak

Lange-Ratajczak

Bobkiewicz

et al. 2016

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bergamin et col., en Suisse, ont obtenu les mêmes constats (5). D'autres méthodes ont été explorées pour limiter le déplacement du cathéter dans la cavité péritonéale : la fixation interne du cathéter à la paroi abdominale par du fil non résorbable (6), les médecins de la Mayo Clinic ont attaché une prothèse testiculaire à l'extrémité distale du cathéter, celleci ayant le rôle de lest (7). Dans l'étude prospective de Di Paolo et al (2)(3)., le « self-locating catheter » présentait 0.8% de migration contre 12% dans leur groupe témoin de manière statistiquement significative.…”

Section: Resultatsunclassified

Efficiency and safety of using a peritoneal dialysis catheter weighted with a stainless steel ballast : the Limousin experience

Larivière-Durgueil¹,

Boudet²,

Essig³

et al. 2019

Bull Dial Domic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the recurrence of PD catheter migration after the introduction of a walnut ballast. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study from 1999 to 2014 of PD patients followed in Limousin. Were compared two groups: ballast group (patients who benefited from the establishment of stainless steel ballast at the intraperitoneal catheter extremity) with 26 patients and control group with 204 patients. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an episode catheter’s migration after ballast’s establishment. Secondary objectives were (i) to determine the causal factors leading to the catheter weighting, (ii) to ensure the safety of the procedure on the following criteria: infectious complications, mechanicals complications, epurations criteria, and catheter’s survival. Results: More than one year after the implementation of the ballast, no recurrent migration was observed in 86.6% of cases. It wasn’t found an increased risk of infections (OR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.22, 1.13]) or mechanical complications (OR = 1.77- 95% CI [0.77, 4.05]) between the two groups. The adequation criteria were similar: KT / V total : 2.37 in the control group and 2.28 in the ballast group (p = 0.63). The survival of the ballast catheter was comparable among the two groups (p = 0.983). Three causal factors that led to the ballast were identified: automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) (OR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.16, 0.9]), the failure from the first use of the catheter (OR = 19.48, CI 95 % [7.67, 49.48]) and the incarceration of the omentum (OR = 15.84, 95% CI [5.81, 43.21]). Conclusion: The ballast used in these study appears to prevent recurrence of migration, without any impact in terms of infectious or mechanical complications, or on the dialysis criteria or on catheter’s survival. However this catheter does currently not have an EC authorization

show abstract