Comparison of outcomes of peritoneal dialysis catheters placed by the fluoroscopically guided percutaneous method versus directly visualized surgical method

Abstract

Purpose: To compare complications in catheters placed by the fluoroscopically guided percutaneous method versus directly visualized surgery.

Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed. Mechanical complication rate data, including catheter leakage, malfunction, malposition, and bleeding, were compared between the two groups over a 1-year follow-up period. Additionally, exit site infection rates, tunnel infection rates, and peritonitis episodes were evaluated based on the incidence within 30 days of insertion and 30 days to 1 year after insertion.

Results: A total of 101 patients were analyzed (52 in the fluoroscopic guidance group, 49 in the direct visualization group). Prevalence of diabetes was similar: 56% in the directly visualized surgery group and 47% in the fluoroscopically guided treatment group (P = .37). Although the difference was not significant, complication rates tended to be higher in the directly visualized surgery group compared with the percutaneous placement group. These included catheter leakage (13% vs 4%; P = .093), malfunction (11% vs 9%; P = .73), malposition (13% vs 6%; P = .20), and bleeding (8% vs 2%; P = .21). There were no differences in early and late exit site infections and tunnel infections. Late peritonitis rates were lower in the percutaneous placement group (20%) than in the direct visualization group (42%) (P = .018). Diabetic patients had approximately six times greater risk of catheter malfunction than nondiabetic patients regardless of method of catheter insertion.

Conclusions: Placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters percutaneously with fluoroscopic guidance is as safe as placement with direct visualization techniques.