Comparison of Percutaneous and Open Surgical Techniques for First-Time Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement in the Unbreached Peritoneum

Abstract

Background

The percutaneous Seldinger method of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion has gained favor over recent years whereas traditionally it was reserved for patients considered not fit for general anesthesia. This blind technique is believed to be less safe, and is hence avoided in patients with previous laparotomy incisions. Reports on the success of this method may therefore be criticized for selection bias. In those with no prior abdominal surgery the optimal method of insertion has not been established.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of first-time PDC placements comparing the percutaneous (group P) and surgical (group S) insertion techniques in patients without a history of previous abdominal surgery in a single center between January 2003 and June 2010. We assessed catheter survival at 3 and 12 months post-insertion and compared complication rates between the two groups.

Results

A total of 63 percutaneous and 64 surgical catheter insertions were analyzed. No significant difference was noted in catheter survival rates between group P and group S (86.2% vs 80% at 3 months, p = 0.37; and 78.3% vs 71.2% at 12 months, p = 0.42 respectively). Early and overall peritonitis rates were similar (5% vs 5.3%; p = 1, and 3.5 vs 4.9 episodes per 100 patient-months; p = 0.13 for group P and group S respectively). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in exit site leaks (15.9% in group P vs 6.3% in group S; p = 0.15), poor initial drainage (9.5% in group P vs 10.9% in group S, p = 0.34) or secondary drainage failure (7.9% in group P vs 18.8% in group S, p = 0.09).

Conclusion

This study illustrates the success and safety of percutaneous PDC insertion compared with the open surgical technique in PD naive patients without a history of prior abdominal surgery. Catheter survival was favorable with percutaneous insertion in this low-risk patient population but larger prospective studies may help to determine whether either method is superior. The percutaneous technique can be recommended as a minimally invasive, cost-effective procedure that facilitates implementing an integrated care model in nephrology practice.