腹腔镜技术在腹膜透析通路形成中的功效

封面


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

腹腔镜腹膜透析导管植入技术的应用和慢性肾脏病5期腹膜透析患者治疗效率的提高得到了证实。该研究涉及了 2000 年至 2020 年期间在 26 个透析中心接受腹膜透析治疗的 1228 例慢性肾脏病 5 期患者。第1组“开放式植入技术”，共包括 1105 人（男性 477 人（43%），女性 628 人（57%））。腹膜透析导管植入时的平均年龄为 52.4 ± 0.48 岁。第2组“腹腔镜植入技术”，包括 123 人（男性 57 人（46%），女性 66 人（54%））。2000 年初，78 名患者继续使用腹膜透析，45 名患者停止使用腹膜透析。腹膜透析导管植入时的平均年龄为 51.9±1.28 岁。与第1组相比，第2组腹膜透析导管的 "存活率 "更高，这是因为导管出现功能障碍和丢失的情况较少，以及通过扩大既往接受过腹部手术的患者使用腹膜透析的可能性。在第1组和第2组中，停止腹膜透析的主要原因都是感染并发症。与第1组相比，第2组中女性和超重患者的腹膜透析导管技术“存活率”明显更高。据统计，第 2 组无感染并发症的患者比例明显低于第 1 组。因此，腹腔镜腹膜透析导管植入技术的应用提高了治疗质量，扩大了其应用适应症，提高了腹膜透析的技术“存活率”。同时，两种手术方案（腹膜透析导管植入的开腹和腹腔镜技术）都有存在的权利。不过，对于女性和超重患者来说，腹腔镜技术更受青睐，因为它可以减少他们转入血液透析的次数。因此，建议将腹腔镜腹膜透析导管植入技术引入腹膜透析通路建立部门的临床实践中。

作者简介

Il’ya A. Ilyin

Kirov Military Medical Academy

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

postgraduate student

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Andrey N. Belskikh

Kirov Military Medical Academy

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

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

俄罗斯联邦, 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

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Mikhail V. Zakharov

Kirov Military Medical Academy

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

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

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Mikhail O. Pyatchenkov

Kirov Military Medical Academy

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: vmeda-nio@mil.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5893-3191
SPIN 代码: 5572-8891

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

参考

  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

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载

版权所有 © Eco-Vector, 2024

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎 4.0国际许可协议的许可。
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.


##common.cookie##