Efficiency of laparoscopic technique of access formation for peritoneal dialysis

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Peritoneal dialysis is an effective method of renal replacement therapy. Currently, different opinions have been put forward as to which catheter implantation technique is preferable for peritoneal dialysis. In this study, the application of the laparoscopic implantation technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter and improving the effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis in patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease is substantiated. The study included 1,228 patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease who received medical care by peritoneal dialysis and were observed in 26 dialysis centers between 2000 and 2020. Group 1 received open implantation technique (n = 1105 people; 477 men [43%], 628 women [57%]). The average age at the time of implantation of peritoneal dialysis catheter was 52.4 ± 0.48 years. Group 2 received laparoscopic implantation technique (n = 123; 57 men (46%), 66 women (54%)). At the beginning of 2000, peritoneal dialysis was maintained in 78 patients but was continued in 45 people. The average age at the time of implantation of the peritoneal dialysis catheter was 51.9 ± 1.28 years. Compared with group 1, group 2 demonstrated better “survival” because of the lower dysfunction and catheter loss rates, increased opportunities for using peritoneal dialysis in patients with previous abdominal surgery. In both groups, peritoneal dialysis was mainly terminated because of complications. The technical “survival” of the peritoneal dialysis was significantly higher in women and patients who were overweight in group 2 than in group 1. The proportion of patients without infectious complications was significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1. Thus, laparoscopic implantation of the peritoneal dialysis catheter improves the quality of treatment, expands the indications for its use, and increases peritoneal dialysis “survival”. In addition, both surgical options (open and laparoscopic implantation techniques for peritoneal dialysis catheter) can be employed; however, the laparoscopic technique is preferred in women and patients who are overweight because they reduced the conversion rate to hemodialysis. Accordingly, the introduction of an advanced laparoscopic technique for implanting a peritoneal dialysis catheter into the clinical practice of making access for peritoneal dialysis is necessary.

About the authors

Il’ya A. Ilyin

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-2793-9605
SPIN-code: 9648-5152

postgraduate student

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Andrey N. Belskikh

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0421-3797
SPIN-code: 7764-0930

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Kоnstantin Ya. Gurevich

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3034-4456

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Mikhail V. Zakharov

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6549-3991
SPIN-code: 4732-9877

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), associate professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Mikhail O. Pyatchenkov

Kirov Military Medical Academy

Author for correspondence.
Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5893-3191
SPIN-code: 5572-8891

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Li PK, Chow KM, Van de Luijtgaarden MW, et al. Changes in the worldwide epidemiology of peritoneal dialysis. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2017;13(2):90–103. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2016.181
  2. Mehrotra R, Devuyst O, Davies S, et al. The current state of peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27(11):3238–3252. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016010112
  3. Van de Luijtgaarden MWM, Jager KJ. Trends in dialysis modality choice and related patient survival in the ERA-EDTA Registry over a 20-year period. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31(1):120–128. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv295
  4. Sakurada T, Kaneshiro N, Taki Y, et al. Long-term prognosis of peritoneal dialysis patients with a re-embedded catheter. Adv Perit Dial. 2017;33(2017):31–34.
  5. Tokgoz B. Clinical advantages of peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2009;29(suppl 2):59–61.
  6. Li PK, Chow KM, Cho Y, et al. ISPD peritonitis guideline recommendations: 2022 update on prevention and treatment. Perit Dial Int. 2022;42(2):110–153. doi: 10.1177/08968608221080586
  7. Cheetham MS, Zhao J, McCullough K, et al. International peritoneal dialysis training practices and the risk of peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2022;37(5):937–949. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfab298
  8. Chow KM, Li PK, Cho Y, et al. ISPD catheter-related infection recommendations: 2023. Perit Dial Int. 2023;43(3):201–219. doi: 10.1177/08968608231172740
  9. Rubin HR, Fink NE, Plantinga LC, et al. Patient ratings of dialysis care with peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis. JAMA. 2004;291(6): 697–703. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.6.697
  10. Mehta RL, Cerda J, Burdmann EA, et al. International Society of Nephrology’s 0by25 initiative for acute kidney injury (zero preventable deaths by 2025): A human rights case for nephrology. Lancet. 2015;385(9987):2616–2643. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60126-X
  11. Berger A, Edelsberg J, Inglese GW, et al. Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(8):509–518.
  12. Brum S, Rodrigues A, Rocha S, et al. Moncrief-Popovich technique is an advantageous method of peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(9):3070–3075. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq142
  13. Foundation NK KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for 2006 updates: hemodialysis adequacy, peritoneal dialysis adequacy and vascular access. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48(Suppl. 1):2–90. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.03.051
  14. Shetty AOG Peritoneal dialysis: its indications and contraindications. Dial Transplant. 2000;29(2):71–77.
  15. Macheng LU, Cong C, Ye Z. Laparoscopic versus conventional open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion in china: A Meta-Analysis. Urol J. 2023;20(2):81–89. doi: 10.22037/uj.v20i.7359
  16. Qing Q, Leting Z, Kun H. Laparoscopic versus traditional peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta analysis. Ren Fail. 2016;38(5):838–848. doi: 10.3109/0886022X.2015.1077313
  17. Sander MH, Jeffrey AL, Ewout WS. Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056351
  18. Mei-Lan S, Yong Z, Bo W, et al. Randomized controlled trials for comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis. BMC Nephrology. 2020;21(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01724-w
  19. Chen Y, Shao Y, Xu J. The survival and complication rates of laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a metaanalysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25(5):440–443. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000188
  20. Jorinde HH, Van L, Tom C, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing open versus laparoscopic placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter and outcomes: the CAPD I trial. Perit Dial Int. 2018;38(2):104–112. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2017.00023

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2024 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 77762 от 10.02.2020.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies