Our centre introduced peritoneoscopic insertion of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter by nephrologists as a new method in August 2009 for its potential benefits.Aim:
The aim of this study was to compare perioperative complications and catheter survival of three techniques: peritoneoscopic, surgical and radiological techniques within a single dialysis centre.Method:
This study used retrospective analysis of all PD catheter inserted from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2013 within Counties Manukau DHB, Auckland, New Zealand.Results:
During the study period, 293 PD catheters were inserted, 84 (29%) peritoneoscopic (P), 140 (48%) surgical (S) and 69 (23%) radiological (R). Total duration of follow-up was 5848 catheter-months, with median follow-up of 17 months. There was no difference in perioperative exit-site infections and overall early infections. There was however increased overall perioperative complications in P compared with R (HR 2.08; P < 0.05), predominantly from catheter removal within 60 days. Although there was no difference observed in first catheter 1-year and overall survival between insertion techniques, there was poorer complication-free survival comparing P to S (HR 1.82, P = 0.001) but not to R. Analyses of the latter cohort of P confirmed improvement in catheter survival compared with an earlier cohort and to other insertion techniques.Conclusion:
Peritoneoscopic PD catheter insertion is demonstrated to be a suitable alternative technique. As with any new procedure, ‘learning curve’ effects and development of operator expertise need to be taken into consideration.SUMMARY AT A GLANCE
This retrospective study compares perioperative outcomes and peritoneal dialysis catheter survivals between three different catheter insertions techniques–peritoneoscopic, laparoscopic surgical and radiological. Nephrologist-led peritoneoscopic insertion has been demonstrated to be a safe alternative with many benefits.