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

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Badri M. Shrestha ◽  
Donna Shrestha ◽  
Avneesh Kumar ◽  
Alice Shrestha ◽  
Simon A. Boyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Exit Site ◽  
Catheter Survival ◽  
Catheter Obstruction ◽  
Advanced Laparoscopy

BackgroundThe optimal methodology of establishing access for peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains controversial. Previously published randomized controlled trials and cohort studies do not demonstrate an advantage for 1 technique over another. Four published meta-analyses comparing outcomes of laparoscopic versus open PD catheter (PDC) insertion have given inconsistent conclusions and are flawed since they group basic and advanced laparoscopy together. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine whether advanced laparoscopic interventions consisting of rectus sheath tunneling and adjunctive procedures produce a better outcome than open insertion or basic laparoscopy used only to verify the catheter position.MethodsA literature search using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database was performed, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Outcomes evaluated incidence of catheter obstruction, migration, pericannular leak, hernia, infectious complications (peritonitis and exit-site infection) and catheter survival.ResultsOf the 467 records identified, 7 cohort studies, including 1,045 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. When advanced laparoscopy was compared with open insertion, a significant reduction was observed in the incidence of catheter obstruction (odds ratio [OR] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 – 0.63; p = 0.01), catheter migration (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 – 0.26; p = 0.00001), pericannular leak (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 – 0.64; p = 0.003), and pericannular and incisional hernias (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 – 0.94; p = 0.04), as well as better 1- and 2-year catheter survival (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 – 0.97; p = 0.04 and OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 – 0.92; p = 0.03, respectively). Compared with basic laparoscopy, catheter obstruction and migration were significantly lower in the advanced laparoscopic group, whereas catheter survival was similar in both groups. All outcomes, except catheter obstruction, were similar between the basic laparoscopy and open insertion. The infectious complications such as peritonitis and exit-site infections were similar between the 3 groups.ConclusionsAdvanced laparoscopy was associated with a significant superior outcome in comparison with open insertion and basic laparoscopy.

Outcome and Safety of Unplanned-Start Peritoneal Dialysis according to Break-In Periods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiyu Yin ◽  
Yanpei Cao ◽  
Li Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Catheter Obstruction ◽  
Catheter Malposition ◽  
Catheter Implantation ◽  
Unplanned Start

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The best timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation after catheter implantation is still controversial. It is necessary to explore whether there exists a waiting period to minimize the risk of complications. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review and meta-analysis were searched in multiple electronic databases published from inception to February 29, 2020, to identify cohort studies for evaluating the outcome and safety of unplanned-start PD (&#x3c;14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fourteen cohort studies with a total of 2,401 patients were enrolled. We found that early-start PD was associated with higher prevalence of leaks (RR: 2.67, 95% CI, 1.55–4.61) and omental wrap (RR: 3.28, 95% CI, 1.14–9.39). Furthermore, patients of unplanned-start PD in APD group have higher risk of leaks, while those in CAPD group have a higher risk of leaks, omental wrap, and catheter malposition. In shorter break-in period (BI) group, the risk of suffering from catheter obstruction and malposition was higher for patients who started dialysis within 7 days after the surgery than for patients within 7–14 days. No significant differences were found in peritonitis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78–1.27) and exit-site infections (RR: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.72–1.75). However, shorter BI was associated with higher risk of mortality and transition to hemodialysis (HD) while worsen early technical survival, with pooled RR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.52–3.02), 1.42 (95% CI, 1.09–1.85) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.99), respectively. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Evidence suggests that patients receiving unplanned-start PD may have higher risks of mechanical complications, transition to HD, and even mortality rate while worsening early technical survival, which may not be associated with infectious complications. Rigorous studies are required to be performed.

scholarly journals Selective Infracolic Omentecomy and Fixation Reduces Complications after Laparoscopic Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement

2018 ◽  
Vol I (1) ◽  
pp. 06-11
Author(s):  
Andries Ryckx
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
P Value ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Exit Site ◽  
Exit Site Infection ◽  
Catheter Survival ◽  
Catheter Obstruction ◽  
Infracolic Omentectomy

Introduction Peritoneal dialysis (PD) as a treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) provides a competitive alternative to hemodialysis (HD). Long-term catheter survival remains challenging and techniques are not standardized. Advanced laparoscopic placement with fixation and omentectomy might increase catheter survival. The goal of our study was to evaluate if selective infracolic omentectomy and fixation reduced complications after CAPD catheter placement. Materials and Methods A prospective database of patients with CAPD catheter placement from March 2004 to March 2015 was analyzed. All procedures were performed laparoscopically assisted and under general anesthesia by a single surgeon. 78 patients were included, there were no exclusion criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS. Fisher exact test and log-rank test with calculation of P-value was executed. P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results Of the 78 patients who underwent catheter placement, 53 (68%) were males and 25 (32%) were females. The mean age was 54 (ranged from 13 to 88 years). Selective infracolic omentectomy was performed in 32 patients if the momentum reached beyond the promontory. Non-resorbable sutures to fix the catheter were applied in 33 patients. The average duration of peritoneal dialysis was 21 months (range from ten days to 84 months). Omentectomy significantly reduced the incidence of catheter obstruction (3 vs. 11%, P=0.028) but not of catheter dislocation (19 vs. 30%, P=0.101). Omentectomy did not significantly increase the incidence of peritonitis (22 vs. 31%,P=0.133) or exit-site infection (16vs 17%, P=0.238). Catheter fixation with non-resorbable sutures reduced catheter dislocation (21 vs. 23%, P=0.226) and catheter obstruction( 12 vs.17%,P=0.223) with a significant reduction of peritonitis (15 vs. 29%, P=0.044) and no effect on exit-site infection (15 vs. 17%,P=0.251). Conclusion Laparoscopic PD catheter placement with selective omentectomy and fixation of the catheter to the abdominal wall is safe and feasible and leads to fewer complications. Key words: peritoneal, dialysis, catheter, complications, laparoscopy, omentectomy.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Versus Surgical Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205435812110527
Author(s):  
Anirudh Agarwal ◽  
Reid H. Whitlock ◽  
Ryan J. Bamforth ◽  
Thomas W. Ferguson ◽  
Jenna M. Sabourin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Kidney Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Catheter Insertion ◽  
Early Complications ◽  
Exit Site ◽  
Percutaneous Insertion

Background: Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes. Objective: To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template. Patients: Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure. Measurements: We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up. Methods: Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques. Limitations: Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.

Different techniques for peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 089686082095372
Author(s):  
Zhiyun Zang ◽  
Xiao Qiu ◽  
Lichuan Yang ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Zi Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Catheter Survival ◽  
Credible Intervals ◽  
Exit Tunnel

The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients’ anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However, the research comparing of all the existing PDC techniques is lacking. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of PDC techniques by network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. NMA was used to estimate the ranking for endpoints. Our NMA included 41 studies (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 32 observational trials) and enrolled 3902 patients, comparing three techniques: the laparoscopic catheterization (LC), open surgery catheterization (OSC), and percutaneous catheterization (PC). NMA in RCTs showed OSC had the highest incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunction, PC and LC were very similar, but this result had no statistical difference. NMA in observational studies showed that LC had the highest 1-year catheter survival but without statistical difference (LC vs. OSC: odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 0.90–3.40; PC vs. OSC: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 0.80–2.97; PC vs. LC: OR 0.88, 95% CrIs 0.54–1.44). OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. The complications of leakage, peritonitis, and exit/tunnel infection were inconclusive due to the inconsistent results between RCTs and observational studies. Our NMA revealed LC may have the best 1-year catheter survival. PC and LC might be efficacious in lowering the mechanical dysfunction. OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. More RCTs with larger scale and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.

TP7.2.16 Systematic review and meta analysis of pre operative antibiotics and bowel preparation on ileus following colorectal resection

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kelly ◽  
Gerard McKnight ◽  
Alisdair J. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Colorectal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mechanical Bowel Preparation ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Aims Pre-operative oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may reduce rates of post-operative infectious complications following colorectal surgery but their effects on post-operative ileus (POI) are not well-established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this question. Methods Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing pre-operative MBP or OAB to control in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and reporting the rate of POI as an outcome. Risk ratios were pooled using a random-effects model to generate a summary risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results Five randomised trials and three cohort studies were included which reported the effect of pre-operative MBP on POI. Some 29056 patients received MBP compared to 13077 who did not. The rates of POI were 10.0% vs 12.0% respectively. Meta-analysis gave a risk ratio of 0.85 (0.80-0.91, p &lt; 0.0001) for the development of POI with MBP versus control. Four randomised trials and four cohort studies were included which reported the effect of pre-operative OAB on POI. Some 9.5% of 19,903 patients receiving OAB developed POI compared to 11.8% of 23,884 control patients. The pooled risk ratio for the development of POI with OAB compared to control was 0.86 (0.81-0.91, p &lt; 0.0001). However, when limiting analyses to randomised trials alone, neither MBP (RR 1.13, 0.67-1.90) nor OAB 1.01, 0.75-1.35) had a significant effect on the rate of POI. Conclusions Pre-operative MBP or OAB may reduce POI following colorectal resection but this has not been confirmed in randomised trials.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage on patients with acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045031
Author(s):  
Zongqing Lu ◽  
Xingxing Zhu ◽  
Tianfeng Hua ◽  
Jin Zhang ◽  
Wenyan Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Abdominal Paracentesis

ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional ‘step-up’ strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional ‘step-up’ strategy based on PCD were included.OutcomesThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.ResultsFive cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional ‘step-up’ method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) −0.31, 95% CI −0.53 to –0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD −0.45, 95% CI −0.64 to –0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD −2.49, 95% CI −4.46 to –0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.89 to –0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the ‘step-up’ strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020168537.

Catheter Configuration and Outcome in Patients on Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis: A Prospective Comparison of Two Catheters

1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn H. Eklund ◽  
Eero O. Honkanen ◽  
Aino-Riitta Kala ◽  
Lauri E. Kyllönen
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Exit Site ◽  
Catheter Survival ◽  
Tenckhoff Catheter ◽  
Prospective Comparison ◽  
Catheter Tip ◽  
The Impact

Objective To examine the impact of peritoneal catheter configuration on mechanical complications, catheter survival, probability of episodes of peritonitis, and probability of exit-site infections associated with the use of catheters for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Design Prospective randomized trial. Setting CAPD unit in one university hospital. Patients Forty consecutive patients requiring a dialysis catheter for future CAPD were randomized to receive either a single-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheter or a permanently bent single-cuff Swan neck catheter. The skin exit was upward-directed in the Tenckhoff group and downward-directed in the Swan neck group. Results Dialysate leak occurred in one patient and symptomatic catheter tip migration in 3 patients with the Tenckhoff catheter but in none with the single-cuff Swan neckcatheter(p=O.5, p=0.12). No significant differences in catheter survival at 2 years, probability of episodes of peritonitis, or probability of exit-site infections could be demonstrated. Conclusion Catheter configuration did not influence the catheter-related mechanical or infectious complications. We were unable to demonstrate any advantage of the newer, permanently bent single-cuff Swan neck catheter over the conventional straight type.

scholarly journals Catheter diversion procedure with exit-site renewal promotes peritoneal dialysis catheter survival

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rikako Oki ◽  
Yoshifumi Hamasaki ◽  
Yohei Komaru ◽  
Yoshihisa Miyamoto ◽  
Ryo Matsuura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Dialysis Catheter ◽  
Exit Site ◽  
Catheter Survival
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document