Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion using a very-low-site approach: a 5-year experience

A nephrologist dream of peritoneal dialysis catheter with zero migration: A multicenter prospective study

INTRODUCTION

PD catheter tip migration is a common complication and a significant cause of catheter malfunction. In this perspective, we present our experience with a new catheter and a new technique that involves the use of a new triple cuff PD catheter and a low entry site in an attempt to prevent PD catheter migration.

METHODS

A total of 503 incident PD patients have been studied in more than one PD center over a period of 5 years.

RESULTS

During the 5-year follow up we recorded zero percent catheter migration. Other technical complications were poor drainage in 3.4%, omental wrap in 2.8%, early leakage in 3.4%, and catheter replacement in 2.4%. By the end of the study, the one-year PD catheter survival was 97.6%.

CONCLUSION

Our new triple cuff PD catheter and our low-entry approach seem to be effective in preventing PD catheter migration and minimizing other mechanical complications.

Low-site versus traditional peritoneal dialysis catheterization: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the complications of low-site peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion.

METHODS

The following databases were searched from inception to September 6, 2019: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang. Eligible studies comparing low-site PD catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 504 patients were included in the low-site PD catheter placement group, and 325 patients were included in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with traditional open surgery, low-site PD catheter placement had a lower incidence rate of catheter displacement (odds ratios [OR] 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.22, P < .01) and noncatheter displacement dysfunction (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, P < .01). However, there was no difference between the 2 catheter insertion methods concerning bleeding (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23-1.22, P = .13), PD fluid leakage (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.10, P = .07), hypogastralgia (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.80, P = .93), peritonitis (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.54, P = .38), or exit-site and tunnel infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-1.03, P = .06).

CONCLUSION

Low-site PD catheter placement reduced the risk of catheter displacement and noncatheter displacement dysfunction and did not increase the risk of bleeding, PD fluid leakage, hypogastralgia, peritonitis, or exit site and tunnel infections. Additional large multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.