Abstract
Implantation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters via the laparoscopic technique is expanding, but none of the studies concerning this technique have compared its outcome with the percutaneous insertion done by the nephrologist. We compared the technical survival and outcome of 52 PD catheters placed in 43 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in our center from March 2006 to October 2007. Of these, 27 PD catheters were inserted percutaneously by a nephrologist (group 1) and 25 were placed by a surgeon using the conventional laparoscopic technique (group 2). Very obese patients, those with previous abdominal surgery, and those who refused local anesthesia were excluded from the study. All catheters were evaluated for mechanical and infectious complications and the overall technique survival was analyzed. The incidence of complications in PD catheters did not largely differ between the two groups. Early catheter-related infection episodes (within two weeks of catheter placement) occurred in three of 22 (13.6%) patients in group 1, versus three of 21 (14.3%) patients in group 2 (P > 0.05). The incidence of exit site leak was higher in group 2 (19.0%) compared to (4.5%) group 1 (P < 0.001). Moreover, catheter survival was comparable in both groups (81.8% at 12 months and 77.3% at 18 months in group 1) versus (85.7% at 12 months and 80.9% at 18 months in group 2) (P > 0.05). We conclude that in our study, the percutaneous bedside placements of PD catheters done by nephrologists were comparable with the laparoscopic insertions performed by surgeons where the high-risk patients were avoided, and the former provided a safer and more reliable access that allowed a rapid initiation of PD.