Laparoscopic versus traditional peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta analysis

Qiao, Qing; Zhou, Le-Ting; Hu, Kun; Xu, Da; Li, Lin; Lu, Guoyuan

doi:10.3109/0886022x.2015.1077313

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, other outcomes were similar between the 2 groups, which differs from the meta-analyses published previously (9,40). A prospective study by Li et al (41) and a RCT by Tsimoyiannis et al (42) compared catheter-related outcomes between laparoscopic and open insertion of PDC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…In addition, omentopexy is carried out either as routine or selectively, where the redundant omentum is anchored to the anterior abdominal wall of the upper abdomen (5). Currently, there are 4 published meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open PDC insertion (6)(7)(8)(9). However, all of these meta-analyses are flawed, as they group together studies that have used both basic and advanced laparoscopic techniques.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advanced Laparoscopic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shrestha

Kumar

et al. 2018

Perit Dial Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Laparoscopic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shrestha

Kumar

et al. 2018

Perit Dial Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Compared with open surgery, the meta-analysis of laparoscopic catheter implantation showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of leakage. In addition, the odds ratio of peritonitis and ESI in laparoscopic implantation was smaller but not significant compared to that in open surgery [2,19]. The time to start PD after catheter implantation in meta-analysis was varied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis after laparoscopic dialysis catheter implantation: a single-center experience

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Appropriate timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter implantation and PD initiation is important. Several guidelines suggest starting PD at least 2 weeks after PD catheter implantation. Recently, urgent-start PD is widespread throughout the world. However, the ideal time to start PD after laparoscopic catheter implantation is not known. We investigated the safety and feasibility of early initiation (within 7 days) PD following laparoscopic peritoneal catheter implantation. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic PD catheter implantation at the Kyoto University Hospital from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016. Based on when PD was initiated, the patients were divided into two groups, namely, early group, ≤ 7 days and late group, > 7 days after catheter implantation. Catheter-related complications and catheter survival were analyzed. Results We analyzed 29 and 26 patients in early and late groups, respectively. The age, sex, the incidence of diabetes and APD, and the follow-up period were not significantly different between the two groups. The interval from catheter implantation to the start of PD was 4.28 ± 1.83 and 162 ± 157.8 days in the early and late groups, respectively (P < 0.01). In a late group, 17 patients (65.4%) underwent catheter implantation using the Moncrief–Popovich technique. The use of bridge hemodialysis was higher in the early group (P < 0.01). No patients developed dialysate leakage in both groups, and no significant differences were observed for catheter malfunction (24.1% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.66), exit-site infection (ESI, 24.1% vs. 28%, P = 0.87), and peritonitis (7.14% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.91) within 6 months. Furthermore, early initiation of PD did not increase the risk of ESI, peritonitis, and PD withdrawal at 1, 2, and 5 years compared to that in the late group. Conclusions Urgent-start of PD with laparoscopic catheter implantation did not increase infection-related complications and PD withdrawal. Laparoscopic PD catheter implantation may allow the initiation of PD earlier than 7 days after implantation.

show abstract

“…Both open and laparoscopic techniques have been utilized to insert the Tenckhoff catheter to use for PD . Since the commencement of laparoscopic insertion, conflicting literature exists as to the safest procedure that minimizes risks of catheter malfunction (obstruction/migration), peritonitis, bleeding, pain and improving recovery time . Qiao et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Since the commencement of laparoscopic insertion, conflicting literature exists as to the safest procedure that minimizes risks of catheter malfunction (obstruction/migration), peritonitis, bleeding, pain and improving recovery time. 1,[3][4][5] Qiao et al 4 performed a systematic review in 2016 when comparing open technique versus laparoscopic technique. This found the laparoscopic technique to be superior in reducing catheter migration and prolonging catheter survival.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic EndoClose fixation of a peritoneal catheter reduces migration

Rouse

Choi

Bakhit

et al. 2019

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With the introduction of laparoscopic Tenckhoff catheter insertion in the early 1990s, catheter malposition resulting in malfunction remains a frequent complication, often requiring surgical or radiological intervention. In this pioneer study, we describe the technique of suturing the Tenckhoff catheter using an EndoClose (Medtronic, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia) device to the anterior abdominal wall during laparoscopic insertion and compare its outcomes with those not sutured. Methods This is a retrospective study of all patients who underwent laparoscopic Tenckhoff catheter insertion at Western Health from January 2013 to June 2018. All procedures were undertaken or supervised by one surgeon. The primary outcome was catheter malposition requiring surgical revision. Secondary outcomes were time to malposition and complications. Peri‐ and post‐operative factors were analysed to adjust for confounders using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. Results There were 82 patients in the sutured group and 63 patients in the non‐sutured group. Catheter malposition occurred in 7.32% in the sutured group and 19.05% in the non‐sutured group (P = 0.034; 95% confidence interval for the difference 0.007–0.237). There was an overall reduction in the odds of catheter malposition of 63% in favour of the sutured group. The median time‐to‐malposition was 128 and 182 days for the non‐sutured and sutured group, respectively, but not statistically different. No differences were found for the number of post‐operative complications. Conclusion Suturing of Tenckhoff catheter with an EndoClose device to the anterior abdominal wall during laparoscopic insertion is a simple, safe and useful method of reducing catheter malposition.

show abstract

Laparoscopic versus traditional peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta analysis

Abstract: Laparoscopic surgery is superior to traditional surgery on reducing catheter migration and prolonging catheter survival rate according to our analysis.

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Advanced Laparoscopic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Advanced Laparoscopic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis after laparoscopic dialysis catheter implantation: a single-center experience

Laparoscopic EndoClose fixation of a peritoneal catheter reduces migration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About