PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1195271)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  A Modified Method in Laparoscopic Peritoneal Catheter Implantation: The Combination of Preperitoneal Tunneling and Pelvic Fixation 
ISRN Surgery  2013;2013:248126.
Introduction. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is widely accepted for the management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although not as widely used as hemodialysis, CAPD has clear advantages, especially those related to patient satisfaction and simplicity. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion can be accomplished by several different techniques. In this study, we aimed to evaluate our results obtained with peritoneal dialysis catheter placement by combination of pelvic fixation plus preperitoneal tunneling. Material and Methods. Laparoscopic peritoneal catheter implantation by combining preperitoneal tunneling and pelvic fixation methods was performed in 82 consecutive patients with end-stage renal disease. Sex, age, primary disease etiology, complications, mean duration of surgery, mean duration of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and catheter survival rates and surgical technique used were assessed. Analysis of catheter survival was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results. Mean follow-up period was 28.35 ± 14.5 months (range of 13–44 months). Mean operative time was 28 ± 6 minutes, and mean duration of hospital stay was 3 ± 1 days. There were no conversions from laparoscopy to other insertion methods. None of the patients developed serious complications during surgery or the postoperative period. No infections of the exit site or subcutaneous tunnel, hemorrhagic complications, abdominal wall hernias, or extrusion of the superficial catheter cuff was detected. No mortality occurred in this series of patients. Catheter survival was found to be 92% at 3 years followup. Conclusions. During one-year followup, we had seven patients of migrated catheters due to separation of pelvic fixation suture from peritoneal surface, but they were reimplanted and fixated again laparoscopically with success. Over a three-year followup period, catheter survival was found to be 92%. In the literature, similar catheter survival rates without combination of the two techniques are reported. As a conclusion, although laparoscopic placement of PD catheters avoids many perioperative and early complications, as well as increasing catheter free survival period and quality of life, our results comparing to other studies in the literature indicate that different laparoscopic placement methods are still in debate, and further studies are necessary to make a more accurate decision.
doi:10.1155/2013/248126
PMCID: PMC3671265  PMID: 23762625
2.  Comparing the outcomes of open surgical procedure and percutaneously peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion using laparoscopic needle: A two month follow-up study 
BACKGROUND:
This study was performed to compare the outcomes of open surgical procedure and percutaneously peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion using laparoscopic needle.
METHODS:
This randomized clinical trial study was conducted in the Nephrology Department in Noor Hospital, Isfahan, Iran between 2009 and 2010. 64 uremic patients were randomized into two study groups using random allocation software. Thirty four catheters were inserted percutaneously (P group) and 30 catheters were placed surgically (S group). Collected information included demographic data, body mass index, and cause of renal disease, duration of operation and length of hospitalization. Outcomes were considered as mechanical and infectious complications.
RESULTS:
There were no significant differences in age, gender, the mean of body mass index, having history of hemodialysis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and length of hospitalization. Hemopenitoneom was more frequent in S group than P group (13.3% versus 3.2%; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between two groups in early peritonitis, early leakage, hernia, hollow viscous perforation, catheter obstruction, and malpositioning and the time of peritoneal dialysis onset. Outflow failure and the exit site infection were more frequent in S group than P group (p < 0.0001). Mean of the operative time was longer in S group than P group (27.70 ± 2.79 minutes versus 10.48 ± 1.91 minutes, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:
Percutaneous catheter insertion has fewer rate of complications and is less time consuming in comparison with surgical method.
PMCID: PMC3214349  PMID: 22091260
Laparoscopy; Needles; Catheter Ablation; Peritoneal Dialysis
3.  Laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis 
BMC Nephrology  2012;13:69.
Background
Peritoneal dialysis has been proven to be a safe and effective mode of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. The usage of laparoscopic catheter placement technique was increased in recent years. But the advantages and disadvantages between the laparoscopic catheter placement technique and open laparotomy technique were still http://in controversy. The objective of this study is to access the operation-related data and complications of catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, Then to determine the better method for catheter insertion.
Methods
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on published studies identified by the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Highwire, and the Cochrane Library. Analysis was performed using the statistical software Review Manager Version 5.0.
Results
We assessed the operation-related data and complications of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ten observational studies. The available data showed that laparoscope prolonged the time for catheter insertion in PD patients, however, the two groups did not significantly differ in hospital stays, early and late complications, including infection, dialysate leaks, catheter migration, pericannular bleeding, blockage and hernia.
Conclusions
The data showed that Laparoscopic catheter placement had no superiority to open surgery. However, this treatment still needs to be confirmed in a large, multi-center, well-designed RCT.
doi:10.1186/1471-2369-13-69
PMCID: PMC3439683  PMID: 22839745
Laparoscopic catheter placement; Peritoneal dialysis; Complications
4.  Comparison of percutaneous versus open surgical techniques for placement of peritoneal dialysis catheter in children: A randomized clinical trial 
Background This research compares the outcomes of percutaneous technique and open surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter placement in children.
Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, between 2010 and 2011,a total of 35 pediatric uremic patients were enrolled and randomized into two study groups. Follow up data included duration of operation (minute), duration of hospitalization (days) and onset time of peritoneal dialysis. Complications were considered as mechanical and infectious.
Results: The percutaneous procedure was significantly faster than the open surgical technique (9.5 ± 1.81 versus 27.00 ± 2.61 minutes, p= 0.0001). The onset of dialysis was earlier in percutaneous insertion. There were no cases of hollow viscous perforation, early peritonitis and exit site infection at the 3rd, 7th, and 14th day in both groups. Complications in open surgical group were include wrapped omentum in 4 (23.5%), catheter malposition in 3 (17.6%),delayed exit site infection in 2 (11.7%), Incisional hernia in 1 (5.8%)and hemoperitoneum in 2 (11.7%)cases. Complications in percutaneous insertion group were include catheter malposition and wrapped omentum each in one case.
Conclusion: Percutaneous method with secure insertion of the catheter reduced the rate of some complications. Although they were not statistically significant, this technique reduces the time of hospitalization and operation without need to general anesthesia. The onset of dialysis was earlier significantly. Trial registry code: IRCT2013091514670N1
PMCID: PMC4154274  PMID: 25250279
Surgical Procedures; Peritoneal dialysis; Catheters; Complications
5.  A New Simplified One-Port Laparoscopic Technique for Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement 
♦ Background: Various techniques for laparoscopic insertion of a peritoneal dialysis catheter have been described. Usually 2 - 3 ports are required, and complications related to the port sites (such as abdominal wall hernia, leakage, and hemorrhage) cannot be avoided. To minimize the potential complications, we designed a simplified 1-port laparoscopic technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement.
♦ Methods: We conducted a retrospective data review of 44 patients who underwent 1-port laparoscopic insertion of a Tenckhoff catheter from June 2009 to February 2011. All patient data, including postoperative complications, were analyzed.
♦ Results: The mean follow-up period was 11.52 months. All catheters were working properly, except in 1 patient who developed peritonitis 3 months after catheter placement. (The catheter was removed.) No postoperative abdominal wall hemorrhage, early leaks, hernias, or catheter migration occurred. No exit-site or tunnel infections were observed.
♦ Conclusions: Our 1-port laparoscopic technique provides excellent catheter fixation, avoids excessive port sites, and yields good cosmesis. The low complication rate and the simplicity of the method justify its standard use for Tenckhoff catheter placement.
doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00130
PMCID: PMC3923700  PMID: 24084839
Laparoscopy; one-port technique; Tenckhoff catheter insertion
6.  Laparoscopic versus Open Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: A Meta-Analysis 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(2):e56351.
Background
Peritoneal dialysis is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. Key to successful peritoneal dialysis is a well-functioning catheter. The different insertion techniques may be of great importance. Mostly, the standard operative approach is the open technique; however, laparoscopic insertion is increasingly popular. Catheter malfunction is reported up to 35% for the open technique and up to 13% for the laparoscopic technique. However, evidence is lacking to definitely conclude that the laparoscopic approach is to be preferred. This review and meta-analysis was carried out to investigate if one of the techniques is superior to the other.
Methods
Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 10). Reference lists were searched manually. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for interventional systematic reviews, and written based on the PRISMA-statement.
Results
Three randomized controlled trials and eight cohort studies were identified. Nine postoperative outcome measures were meta-analyzed; of these, seven were not different between operation techniques. Based on the meta-analysis, the proportion of migrating catheters was lower (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.63; P = 0.006), and the one-year catheter survival was higher in the laparoscopic group (OR 3.93, CI 1.80 to 8.57; P = 0.0006).
Conclusions
Based on these results there is some evidence in favour of the laparoscopic insertion technique for having a higher one-year catheter survival and less migration, which would be clinically relevant.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056351
PMCID: PMC3574153  PMID: 23457554
7.  A Brief Recap of Tips and Surgical Manoeuvres to Enhance Optimal Outcome of Surgically Placed Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters 
Background. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective option of renal replacement therapy for ESRF, offering advantages over haemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement is thought to be the key to successful PD and the economic advantages are lost if a patient switches to HD in the 1st year. This paper is a brief document elaborating a recap of published literature, looking at various surgical tips and manoeuvres to enhance optimal outcome of PDC placement. Methods. A search strategy assessing for access team, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, type of catheter, catheter exit site, intraoperative catheter trial, optimal time to commence PD, hernia repairs, number of cuffs, catheter-embedding procedures, rectus sheath tunnelling, laparoscopic fixing, omentopexy, omentectomy, the “Y”-Tec system, resection of epiploic appendages, adhesiolysis, a trained surgeon, and perioperative catheter care protocol was used looking at various databases. Findings. The complications of catheterrelated dysfunction can be reduced with advanced planning of access placement, immaculate surgery, and attention to catheter insertion techniques. Conclusion. The success of a peritoneal dialysis programme depends upon functional and durable long term access to the peritoneal cavity; this depends on placement techniques and competent surgeons and psychosocial support to the patient. The various technical tips and manoeuvres elaborated here should be considered options carried out to improve outcome and reduce catheter dysfunction.
doi:10.1155/2012/251584
PMCID: PMC3408654  PMID: 22888425
8.  Videolaparoscopic Catheter Placement Reduces Contraindications to Peritoneal Dialysis 
♦ Background: Videolaparoscopy is considered the reference method for peritoneal catheter placement in patients with previous abdominal surgery. The placement procedure is usually performed with at least two access sites: one for the catheter and the second for the laparoscope. Here, we describe a new one-port laparoscopic procedure that uses only one abdominal access site in patients not eligible for laparotomic catheter placement.
♦ Method: We carried out one-port laparoscopic placement in 21 patients presenting contraindications to blind surgical procedures because of prior abdominal surgery. This technique consists in the creation of a single mini-laparotomy access through which laparoscopic procedures and placement are performed. The catheter, rectified by an introducer, is inserted inside the port. Subsequently, the port is removed, leaving the catheter in pelvic position. The port is reintroduced laterally to the catheter, confirming or correcting its position. Laparotomic placement was performed in a contemporary group of 32 patients without contraindications to blind placement. Complications and long-term catheter outcome in the two groups were evaluated.
♦ Results: Additional interventions during placement were necessary in 12 patients of the laparoscopy group compared with 5 patients of the laparotomy group (p = 0.002). Laparoscopy documented adhesions in 13 patients, with need for adhesiolysis in 6 patients. Each group had 1 intraoperative complication: leakage in the laparoscopy group, and intestinal perforation in the laparotomy group. During the 2-year follow-up period, laparoscopic revisions had to be performed in 6 patients of the laparoscopy group and in 5 patients of the laparotomy group (p = 0.26). The 1-year catheter survival was similar in both groups. Laparoscopy increased by 40% the number of patients eligible to receive peritoneal dialysis.
♦ Conclusions: Videolaparoscopy placement in patients not eligible for blind surgical procedures seems to be equivalent to laparotomic placement with regard to complications and long-term catheter outcome. The number of patients able to receive peritoneal dialysis is substantially increased.
doi:10.3747/pdi.2011.00314
PMCID: PMC3707714  PMID: 23209040
One-port placement; surgical placement; technical survival; videolaparoscopy; Tenckhoff catheter; adhesiolysis; contraindication
9.  Randomised Controlled Trial to determine the appropriate time to initiate peritoneal dialysis after insertion of catheter to minimise complications (Timely PD study) 
BMC Nephrology  2010;11:11.
Background
The most appropriate time to initiate dialysis after surgical insertion of Tenckhoff catheters is not clear in the literature. There is the possibility of peritoneal dialysis (PD) complications such as leakage and infection if dialysis is started too soon after insertion. However, much morbidity and expense could be saved by reducing dependency on haemodialysis (HD) by earlier initiation of PD post catheter insertion. Previous studies are observational and mostly compare immediate with delayed use. The primary objective is to determine the safest and shortest time interval between surgical placement of a Tenckhoff catheter and starting PD.
Methods/Design
This is a randomised controlled trial of patients who will start PD after insertion of Tenckhoff catheter at Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) or Rockhampton Base Hospital (RBH) who meet the inclusion criteria. Patients will be stratified by site and diabetic status. The patients will be randomised to one of three treatment groups. Group 1 will start PD one week after Tenckhoff catheter insertion, group 2 at two weeks and group 3 at four weeks. Nurses and physicians will be blinded to the randomised allocation. The primary end point is the complication rate (leaks and infection) after initiation of PD.
Discussion
The study will determine the most appropriate time to initiate PD after placement of a Tenckhoff catheter.
Trial Registration
ACTRN12610000076077
doi:10.1186/1471-2369-11-11
PMCID: PMC2898765  PMID: 20565984
10.  A Comparative Analysis of Percutaneous and Open Surgical Techniques for Peritoneal Catheter Placement 
♦ Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the preferred available option of renal replacement therapy for a significant number of end-stage kidney disease patients. A major limiting factor to the successful continuation of PD is the long-term viability of the PD catheter (PDC). Bedside percutaneous placement of the PDC is not commonly practiced despite published data encouraging use of this technique. Its advantages include faster recovery and avoidance of general anesthesia.
♦ Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of 313 PDC insertions at our center, comparing all percutaneous PDC insertions between July 1998 and April 2010 (group P, n = 151) with all surgical PDC insertions between January 2003 and April 2010 (group S, n = 162).
♦ Results: Compared with group P patients, significantly more group S patients had undergone previous abdominal surgery or PDC insertion (41.8% vs 9.3% and 33.3% vs 3.3% respectively, p = 0.00). More exit-site leaks occurred in group P than in group S (20.5% vs 6.8%, p = 0.002). The overall incidence of peritonitis was higher in group S than in group P (1 episode in 19 catheter-months vs 1 episode in 26 catheter-months, p = 0.017), but the groups showed no significant difference in the peritonitis rate within 1 month of catheter insertion (5% in group P vs 7.4% in group S, p = 0.4) or in poor initial drainage or secondary drainage failure (9.9% vs 11.7%, p = 0.1, and 7.9% vs 12.3%, p = 0.38, for groups P and S respectively).Technical survival at 3 months was significantly better for group P than for group S (86.6% vs 77%, p = 0.037); at 12 months, it was 77.7% and 68.7% respectively (p = 0.126). No life-threatening complications attributable to the insertion of the PDC occurred in either group.
♦ Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates further encouraging outcomes of percutaneous PDC placement compared with open surgical placement. However, the members of the percutaneous insertion group were primarily a selected subset of patients without prior abdominal surgery or PDC insertion, therefore limiting the comparability of the groups. Studies addressing such confounding factors are required. Local expertise in catheter placement techniques may affect the generalizability of results.
doi:10.3747/pdi.2011.00187
PMCID: PMC3524906  PMID: 22550118
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; PD catheter; technical survival; percutaneous insertion; surgical insertion
11.  Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter placement: Is omentectomy necessary? 
Urology Annals  2010;2(3):107-109.
Context:
There are different methods of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) catheter placement. Open surgical technique is a widely followed method. The complication rate following catheter placement varies and catheter blockage due to omental plugging is one of the main reasons.
Aim:
To analyze the need for routine omentectomy during CAPD catheter placement.
Materials and Methods:
This was a retrospective analysis of 58 CAPD catheter placements performed between July 2002 and June 2007. Tenckhoff double cuffed catheter was used in all. The postoperative complications were analyzed.
Results:
There were 44 males and 14 females. The mean age was 51 years ranging from 15 to 76 years. Of these, 40 (69%) patients underwent omentectomy (group A) and 18 (31%) did not (group B). Laparoscopic and open techniques were performed in 5 and 53 patients, respectively. Omentectomy was not performed in 13 patients with open technique and all the five in the laparoscopic group. One patient in group A developed hemoperitoneum which was treated conservatively. None from group A developed catheter blockage, whereas five (27.8%) from group B developed catheter blockage postoperatively. The median time interval between the primary procedure and development of catheter blockage was 45 days (ranged from 14 to 150 days).
Conclusions:
Omentectomy during CAPD catheter placement prevents catheter blockage and secondary interventions.
doi:10.4103/0974-7796.68858
PMCID: PMC2955224  PMID: 20981197
Chronic renal failure; dialysis; omentectomy
12.  Laparoscopic internal fixation is a viable alternative option for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion 
Purpose
One of the major drawbacks of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is catheter migration and dysfunction. Preventing catheter migration is one of the main concerns. We compared laparoscopic internal fixation method with open surgical method for catheter migration rates.
Methods
From January 2008 to August 2009, PD catheters were inserted by laparoscopic fixation (LF) method in 22 patients and by open surgery (OS) in 32 patients. Clinical data were reviewed retrospectively. The frequency of migration, peritonitis, and other complications were compared. Catheter and patient survival rates were also compared.
Results
The mean age and sex ratio were not different between groups. Mean follow-up duration was 29.1 months in LF group and 26.1 months in OS group. More patients in LF group (27.3%) had history of laparotomy than in OS group (3.1%) (P = 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly longer in LF group (101.6 ± 30.4 minutes) than in OS group (72.4 ± 26.03 minutes) (P = 0.00). The cumulative incidence of catheter migration was 65.6% in OS group and 13.6% in LF group (P = 0.00). Migration-free catheter survival was higher in LF group (P = 0.001). There were no differences in complication rates between groups. Overall catheter survival was similar (P = 0.93). Patient survival rate at 2 years was not different (P = 0.13).
Conclusion
Laparoscopic internal fixation of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter significantly reduces migration rates without any addition of complications. Also, laparoscopic technique did not incur patient morbidity or mortality despite the requirement for general endotracheal anesthesia and longer operation time. Therefore, internal fixation can be afforded safely in patients with previous abdominal surgery as either a salvage or preventive measure in patients with repeated catheter migration.
doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.6.381
PMCID: PMC3514481  PMID: 23230557
CAPD; Catheter; Laparoscopy; Fixation; Migration
13.  Laparoscopic Techniques Enable Peritoneal Dialysis in the Difficult Abdomen 
Background and Objectives:
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis has become an increasingly popular modality of renal replacement therapy. Laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters may help overcome previous barriers to peritoneal dialysis, such as previous abdominal surgical procedures or the presence of hernias, without incurring substantially greater risks.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective review of 120 consecutive patients who underwent attempted laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement between July 2009 and June 2014 by a single surgeon. Patient and catheter characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with and without complications, as well as between patients with a history of major abdominal surgery and those without such a history.
Results:
Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement was aborted in 4 patients because of an inability to safely achieve sufficient access to the abdominal cavity through dissection; these patients were excluded from subsequent analysis. The mean follow-up period was 18.8 ± 12.9 months. Fifty-five patients had a history of major abdominal surgery compared with 61 without such a history. No significant difference was observed with respect to age, race, sex, or body mass index between groups. Notably, more adjunctive procedures were required in patients with previous abdominal surgery, including adhesiolysis (60.0% vs 4.9%, P < .0001) and hernia repair (12.7% vs 1.6%, P = .026). Postoperative catheter complications were not significantly different between patients with and patients without a history of abdominal surgery (29.1% vs 32.8%, P = .667). Both unassisted (56.8% vs 65.0%, P = .397) and overall (72.7% vs 76.7%, P = .647) 1-year catheter survival rates were similar between patients with and patients without previous surgery, and the overall 1-year survival rate improved to 83.9% on exclusion of patients who stopped peritoneal dialysis for nonsurgical reasons.
Conclusions:
Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement offers a chance to establish peritoneal dialysis access in patients traditionally viewed as noncandidates for this modality. Despite the potential risks incurred because of additional procedures at the time of catheter placement in these complicated cases, these patients can achieve good long-term peritoneal dialysis access with an aggressive surgical approach.
doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.002334
PMCID: PMC4283101  PMID: 25587214
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; Catheter; Laparoscopy; Abdominal surgery
14.  Hydrophilic Catheters 
Executive Summary
Objective
To review the evidence on the effectiveness of hydrophilic catheters for patients requiring intermittent catheterization.
Clinical Need
There are various reasons why a person would require catheterization, including surgery, urinary retention due to enlargement of the prostate, spinal cord injuries, or other physical disabilities. Urethral catheters are the most prevalent cause of nosocomial urinary tract infections, that is, those that start or occur in a hospital.
A urinary tract infection (UTI) occurs when bacteria adheres to the opening of the urethra. Most infections arise from Escherichia coli, from the colon. The bacteria spread into the bladder, resulting in the development of an infection.
The prevalence of UTIs varies with age and sex. There is a tenfold increase in incidence for females compared with males in childhood and throughout adult life until around 55 years, when the incidence of UTIs in men and women is equal, mostly as a consequence of prostatic problems in men. Investigators have reported that urethritis (inflammation of the urethra) is found in 2% to 19% of patients practising intermittent catheterization.
The Technology
Hydrophilic catheters have a polymer coating that binds o the surface of the catheter. When the polymer coating is submersed in water, it absorbs and binds the water to the catheter. The catheter surface becomes smooth and very slippery. This slippery surface remains intact upon insertion into the urethra and maintains lubrication through the length of the urethra. The hydrophilic coating is designed to reduce the friction, as the catheter is inserted with the intention of reducing the risk of urethral damage.
It has been suggested that because the hydrophilic catheters do not require manual lubrication they are more sterile and thus less likely to cause infection. Most hydrophilic catheters are prepackaged in sterile water, or there is a pouch of sterile water that is broken and released into the catheter package when the catheter is ready to use.
Review Strategy
The Medical Advisory Secretariat searched for reports of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses of RCTs, and RCTs. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (fourth quarter 2005), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (fourth quarter 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (fourth quarter 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to the third week of November 2005), MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-indexed Citations (1966 to November 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to week 49 in 2005). Search terms were urinary catheterization, hydrophilic, intermittent, and bladder catheter.
The Medical Advisory Secretariat also conducted Internet searches of Medscape (www.medscape.com) for recent reports on trials that were unpublished but presented at international conferences. In addition, the Web site Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) was searched for ongoing trials on urinary catheterization.
Summary of Findings
Five RCTs were identified that compared hydrophilic catheters to standard catheters. There was substantial variation across the studies in terms of the reason for catheterization, inclusion criteria, and type of catheter used. Two studies used reusable catheters in the control arm, while the other 3 RCTs used single-use catheters in the control arm. All 5 RCTs focused mainly on males requiring intermittent catheterization. Age varied considerably across studies. One study consisted of young males (mean age 12 years), while another included older males (mean age 71 years).
The RCTs reported conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of the hydrophilic catheters compared with standard catheters in terms of rates of UTIs. All 5 RCTs had serious limitations. Two of the studies were small, and likely underpowered to detect significant differences between groups. One RCT reported 12-month follow-up data for all 123 patients even though more than one-half of the patients had dropped out of the study by 12 months. Another RCT had unequal groups at baseline: the patients in the hydrophilic group had twice the mean number of UTIs at baseline compared with the standard catheter group. The fifth RCT used catheters to treat patients with bladder cancer; therefore, the results of their study are not generalizable to the population requiring intermittent catheterization.
Two studies did not find significant differences between the hydrophilic and standard catheter groups for patient satisfaction. Another RCT reported conflicting results; however, the overall opinion of the catheters was not significantly different between the treatment groups. A fourth RCT found that the hydrophilic catheters were substantially more comfortable than standard catheters. The fifth RCT did not report results for quality of life or patient satisfaction. Similar to the results for effectiveness, it is not possible to clearly establish if there is a significant difference in patient satisfaction between the patients using hydrophilic catheters and those using standard catheters.
Conclusions
Patients requiring intermittent catheterization use, on average, 4 to 5 intermittent catheters per day. Patients admitted to hospitals using intermittent catheters typically do not reuse catheters, owing to the potential increased risk of infection in hospital. Patients self-catheterizing at home are more likely to reuse catheters. Standard catheters cost about $1.00 to $1.50/catheter. Hydrophilic catheters cost about $2.00 to $5.00/catheter, depending on the type and whether they have antibiotics inside. All hydrophilic catheters are single-use.
At this time there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether hydrophilic catheters are associated with a lower rate of UTIs and improved patient satisfaction among people requiring intermittent catheterization.
PMCID: PMC3386556  PMID: 23074500
15.  Laparoscopic Management of Malfunctioning Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters 
Oman Medical Journal  2011;26(3):171-174.
Objectives
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is an established alternative method to hemodialysis for treating end-stage renal disease patients. Malfunction of the peritoneal catheter is a frequent complication in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Laparoscopy is a minimal invasive technique that allows rescue therapy of malfunctioning catheters and consecutive immediate resumption of PD. The purpose of this study is to present our experiences with laparoscopic repair of peritoneal catheter dysfunction
Methods
Between April 2006 and March 2010, 21 cases of laparoscopic interventions were performed for the salvage of malfunctioning CAPD catheter. Two trocars (5 mm) were used. Recorded data included patient demographics, catheter implantation method, date of malfunction, cause of dysfunction, procedure performed and complications.
Results
The primary etiology of dysfunction was omentum and/or small bowel wrapping with adhesions in fifteen cases, malpositioning in four cases, and tunnel infection in the remaining two cases. Adhesiolysis was performed in cases with adhesions. In the cases with malpositioning but no adhesions, the catheters were repositioned in the pelvic cavity. Two catheters had to be withdrawn and exchanged because of infection. There were no mechanical or infection problems. The overall success rate of catheter function (>30 days after laparoscopy) was 100%, except for two cases in which the catheters had to be removed.
Conclusion
Laparoscopy is a safe, highly effective and successful method for the evaluation and management of peritoneal dialysis catheter dysfunction.
doi:10.5001/omj.2011.41
PMCID: PMC3191690  PMID: 22043409
Peritoneal dialysis; Catheter malfunction; Laparoscopy
16.  Implantation of peritoneal catheters by laparotomy: nephrologists obtained similar results to general surgeons 
Purpose
To analyze the complications and costs of minilaparotomies performed by a nephrologist (group A) compared with conventional laparotomies performed by a surgeon (group B) for peritoneal catheter implantation.
Setting
Two university hospitals (Santa Sofia and Caldas) in Manizales, Caldas, Colombia.
Methods
The study included stage 5 chronic kidney disease patients, with indication of renal replacement therapy, who were candidates for peritoneal dialysis and gave informed consent for a peritoneal catheter implant. Minilaparotomies were performed by a nephrologist in a minor surgery room under local anesthesia. Conventional laparotomies were performed by a surgeon in an operating room under general anesthesia.
Results
Two nephrologists inserted 157 peritoneal catheters, and seven general surgeons inserted 185 peritoneal catheters. The groups had similar characteristics: the mean age was 55 years, 49.5% were men, and the primary diagnoses were diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive nephropathy, and unknown etiology. The implant was successful for 98.09% of group A and 99.46% of group B. There was no procedure-related mortality. The most frequent complications in the first 30 days postsurgery in group A versus group B, respectively, were: peritonitis (6.37% versus 3.78%), exit-site infection (3.82% versus 2.16%), tunnel infection (0% versus 0.54%), catheter entrapment by omentum (1.27% versus 3.24%), peritoneal effluent spillover (1.91% versus 2.16%), draining failure (4.46% versus 6.49%), hematoma (0% versus 1.08%), catheter migration with kinking (3.18% versus 2.70%), hemoperitoneum (1.27% versus 0%), and hollow viscera accidental puncture (1.91% versus 0.54%). There were no statistically significant differences in the number of complications between groups. In 2013, the cost of a surgeon-implanted peritoneal dialysis catheter in Colombia was US $366 (666,000 COP), whereas the cost of a nephrologist-implanted catheter was US $198 (356,725 COP).
Conclusion
Nephrologist-performed minilaparotomies had similar effectiveness to surgeon-performed conventional laparotomies and were cost-effective; however, the nonuse of general anesthesia may be related with hollow viscera puncture during the procedure.
doi:10.2147/IJNRD.S68888
PMCID: PMC4211916  PMID: 25364270
catheter implantation; surgical technique; minilaparotomy; complications
17.  Ultrasound-Guided (Needle In-Plane) Perineural Catheter Insertion: The Effect of Catheter Insertion Distance on Postoperative Analgesia 
Background
When using ultrasound guidance to place a perineural catheter for a continuous peripheral nerve block, keeping the needle-in plane and nerve in short-axis results in a perpendicular needle-to-nerve orientation. Many have opined that when placing a perineural catheter via the needle, the acute angle may result in the catheter bypassing the target nerve when advanced beyond the needle tip. Theoretically, greater catheter tip-to-nerve distances result in less local anesthetic-to-nerve contact during the subsequent perineural infusion, leading to inferior analgesia. While a potential solution may appear obvious—advancing the catheter tip only to the tip of the needle, leaving the catheter tip at the target nerve—this technique has not been prospectively evaluated. We therefore hypothesized that during needle in-plane ultrasound-guided perineural catheter placement, inserting the catheter a minimum distance (0-1 cm) past the needle tip is associated with improved postoperative analgesia compared with inserting the catheter a more-traditional 5-6 cm past the needle tip.
Methods
Preoperatively, subjects received a popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter for foot or ankle surgery using ultrasound guidance exclusively. Subjects were randomly assigned to have a single-orifice, flexible catheter inserted either 0-1 (n=50) or 5-6 cm (n=50) past the needle tip. All subjects received a single-injection mepivacaine (40 mL of 1.5% with epinephrine) nerve block via the needle, followed by catheter insertion and a ropivacaine 0.2% infusion (basal 6 mL/h, bolus 4 mL, 30 min lockout), through at least the day following surgery. The primary end point was average surgical pain as measured with a 0-10 numeric rating scale the day following surgery. Secondary end points included time for catheter insertion, incidence of catheter dislodgement, maximum (“worst”) pain scores, opioid requirements, fluid leakage at the catheter site, and the subjective degree of an insensate extremity.
Results
Average pain scores the day following surgery for subjects of the 0-1 cm group was a median (interquartile) of 2.5 (0.0-5.0), compared with 2.0 (0.0-4.0) for subjects of the 5-6 cm group (p=0.42). Similarly, among the secondary end points, no statistically significant differences were found between the two treatment groups. There was a trend of more catheter dislodgements in the minimum-insertion group (5 vs. 1; p=0.20).
Conclusions
This study did not find evidence to support the hypothesis that for popliteal-sciatic perineural catheters placed using ultrasound guidance and a needle in-plane technique, inserting the catheter a minimum distance (0-1 cm) past the needle tip improves (or worsens) postoperative analgesia compared with inserting the catheter a more-traditional distance (5-6 cm). Caution is warranted if extrapolating these results to other catheter designs, ultrasound approaches, or anatomic insertion sites.
doi:10.1097/AAP.0b013e31820f3b80
PMCID: PMC3085850  PMID: 21519311
18.  A novel method for salvage of malfunctioning peritoneal dialysis catheter 
Urology Annals  2014;6(2):147-151.
Context:
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) has been widely used as an effective therapy in the management of patients with end-stage renal disease. Long-term use of CAPD needs methods with low incidence of catheter-related complications. Moreover, some complications may cause failure of fluid drainage and treatment interruption.
Aims:
We have innovated and studied a new minimal-invasive method of malfunctioning peritoneal catheter repair.
Materials and Methods:
Thirty-five patients agreed to undergo catheter rescue operation by this new method during 2004 and 2012. Under local anesthesia and light sedation, access to the abdominal cavity was made, the catheter and wrapped omentum grasped and the tip of catheter was released, debris were removed and the catheter was directed toward the pelvic floor with a finger guide. The patients were followed after catheter salvage up to the end of study (April 2012). PD catheter function restored to the normal level in 28 (80%) of patients, and PD was started 1-2 days after the procedure.
Results:
All patients had an uneventful recovery. PD catheter function was restored to the normal level in 28 (80%) patients, and PD was started 1-2 days after the procedure. Of these patients, 10 (35%) died of reasons unrelated to catheter or catheter complications; 7 (25%) were ultimately referred for kidney transplant; 8 (29%) continued PD up to the end of this study with no problem, and only 3 (11%) due to catheter complications. Catheter function did not restore to the normal level in seven patients (20%); however, six patients continued PD for 1-18 months with the catheter.
Conclusions:
Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of this method to the previous laparoscopically repaired catheter, we concluded that this new method is efficient, and is a suitable way for malfunctioning PD catheter salvage.
doi:10.4103/0974-7796.130646
PMCID: PMC4021656  PMID: 24833828
Catheter malfunction; catheter rescue; continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; minimally invasive surgery; peritoneal dialysis
19.  Laparoscopic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion Using a Quinton Percutaneous Insertion Kit 
Objective:
We assessed a unique technique of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion which can minimize catheter dysfunction.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter placement with a Quinton percutaneous insertion kit between July 2000 and December 2004.
Results:
Thirty-one catheters were placed laparoscopically. The mean operating time was 52 minutes. Adhesiolysis was required in 9 (29%) and omentectomy or omen-topexy in 3 (10%) cases. Late complications included catheter dysfunction in 2 patients (6.5%), debilitating abdominal pain requiring catheter removal in 1 patient, and 1 trocar-site hernia. The mean follow-up was 17 months.
Conclusions:
Laparoscopic PD catheter insertion using a Quinton percutaneous insertion kit is safe, reproducible, and effective. It facilitates placement of the catheter tip into the pelvis and allows adhesiolysis, omentectomy, or omentopexy when necessary. Utilization of this technique results in a low rate of PD catheter dysfunction.
PMCID: PMC3015720  PMID: 17761082
Minimally invasive surgery; Laparoscopy; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; Catheter; In-dwelling; Catheter dysfunction
20.  Comparative efficacy of ultrasound-guided and stimulating popliteal-sciatic perineural catheters for postoperative analgesia 
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia  2010;57(10):919-926.
Purpose
Perineural catheter insertion using ultrasound guidance alone is a relatively new approach. Previous studies have shown that ultrasound-guided catheters take less time to place with high placement success rates, but the analgesic efficacy compared with the established stimulating catheter technique remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter insertion relying exclusively on ultrasound guidance results in superior postoperative analgesia compared with stimulating catheters.
Methods
Preoperatively, subjects receiving a popliteal-sciatic perineural catheter for foot or ankle surgery were assigned randomly to either ultrasound guidance (bolus via needle with non-stimulating catheter insertion) or electrical stimulation (bolus via catheter). We used 1.5% mepivacaine 40 mL for the primary surgical nerve block and 0.2% ropivacaine (basal 8 mL·hr−1; bolus 4 mL; 30 min lockout) was infused postoperatively. The primary outcome was average surgical pain on postoperative day one.
Results
Forty of the 80 subjects enrolled were randomized to each treatment group. One of 40 subjects (2.5%) in the ultrasound group failed catheter placement per protocol vs nine of 40 (22.5%) in the stimulating catheter group (P = 0.014). The difference in procedural duration (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) was −6.48 (−9.90 - −3.05) min, with ultrasound requiring 7.0 (4.0-14.1) min vs stimulation requiring 11.0 (5.0-30.0) min (P < 0.001). The average pain scores of subjects who provided data on postoperative day one were somewhat higher for the 33 ultrasound subjects than for the 26 stimulation subjects (5.0 [1.0-7.8] vs 3.0 [0.0-6.5], respectively; P = 0.032), a difference (mean [95%CI]) of 1.37 (0.03-2.71).
Conclusion
For popliteal-sciatic perineural catheters, ultrasound guidance takes less time and results in fewer placement failures compared with stimulating catheters. However, analgesia may be mildly improved with successfully placed stimulating catheters. Clinical trial registration number NCT00876681.
doi:10.1007/s12630-010-9364-7
PMCID: PMC2937147  PMID: 20700680
21.  Surgical outcomes analysis of pediatric peritoneal dialysis catheter function in a rural region 
Journal of pediatric surgery  2013;48(7):1520-1527.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyze the experience with peritoneal dialysis (PD) at a high-volume, single center institution that supports a rural population.
Methods
From 2000 to 2010, 88 children (median age: 1.98 years, [range: 2 days–20.2 years]) received 134 PD catheters for the management of acute and chronic renal failure. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of primary PD catheter failure (replacement or revision within 60 days). Operative technique, longitudinal outcomes, and time intervals to transplantation were analyzed.
Results
Median time to transplant from the institution of dialysis was 1.4 years [range: 0.3–6.4 years]. Primary catheter failure occurred in 24.6% of cases. Infants less than 6 months of age demonstrated an increased incidence of primary catheter failure (p =0.02). The operative technique for catheter placement was not associated with the incidence of primary failure. Postoperative complications included peritonitis (22.7%), omental plugging (11.9%), pericatheter drainage (9.0%), and exit site infection (3.0%).
Conclusion
Peritoneal dialysis provides a safe and effective renal replacement therapy for regional pediatric centers that serve a rural population. However, primary catheter failure rates remain high at 24.6%. The surgical technique for placement had no effect on this failure rate in our patient population. Infants less than 6 months of age are at increased risk for primary catheter failure and warrant intensive surveillance.
doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.02.032
PMCID: PMC4219559  PMID: 23895966
Peritoneal dialysis; Renal transplantation; Dialysis; Renal failure
22.  Laparoscopic Placement and Revision of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters 
Chronic peritoneal dialysis is an option for many patients with end stage renal disease. Laparoscopy offers an alter-native approach in the management of dialysis patients. Over an 18-month period, laparoscopy was used for placement or revision of seven peritoneal dialysis catheters. All were placed in patients with end stage renal disease for chronic dialysis. Two catheters were initially placed using the laparoscope, and in five other patients, the position of the catheter was revised. Of the two patients who had their catheters placed initially, one patient had a previous lower mid-line incision and underwent laparoscopic placement of a catheter and lysis of pelvic adhesions. The second patient had hepatitis C and chronically elevated liver function tests. He underwent laparoscopic placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter and liver biopsy. Five patients had laparoscopic revision for non-functional catheters. Four were found to have omental adhesions surrounding the catheter. Three patients were found to have a fibrin clot within the catheter, and in one patient the small bowel was adhered to the catheter. All seven patients had general endotracheal anesthesia. There were no operative or anesthetic complications. The average operative time was 56 minutes. Four patients had their procedure in an ambulatory setting and were discharged home the same day. One patient was admitted for 23-hour observation, and two patients had their procedure while in the hospital for other reasons. In follow-up, there was one early failure at two weeks, which required removal of the catheter for infection. One catheter was removed at the time of a combined kidney/pancreas transplant eight months after revision. The other five catheters are still functional with an average follow-up of ten months. These results suggest that laparoscopy is another method for placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters and more importantly for revision in patients with nonfunctional catheters secondary to adhesions. It also provides an opportunity to evaluate the abdomen and perform concomitant procedures.
PMCID: PMC3015335  PMID: 10323172
Laparoscopy; Dialysis catheter; Renal Disease
23.  Laparotomy versus Laparoscopic Placement of Distal Catheter in Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Procedure 
Objective
Traditionally, peritoneal catheter is inserted with midline laparotomy incision in ventriculoperitoneal (V-P) shunt procedures. Complications of V-P shunt is not uncommon and have been reported to occur in 5-37% of cases. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes and the operation time between laparotomy and laparoscopic groups.
Methods
A total of 155 V-P shunt procedures were performed to treat hydrocephalic patients of various origins in our institute between June 2006 to January 2010; 95 of which were laparoscopically guided and 65 were not. We reviewed the operation time, surgery-related complications, and intraoperative and postoperative problems.
Results
In the laparoscopy group, the mean duration of the procedure (52 minutes) was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) than the laparotomy group (109 minutes). There were two cases of malfunctions and one incidence of diaphragm injury in the laparotomy group. In contrast, there were neither malfunction nor any internal organ injuries in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.034). There were total of two cases of infections from both groups (p = 0.7).
Conclusion
Laparoscopically guided insertions of distal shunt catheter is considered a fast and safe method in contrast to the laparotomy technique. This method allows the exact localization of the peritoneal catheter and a confirmation of its patency.
doi:10.3340/jkns.2010.48.4.325
PMCID: PMC2982910  PMID: 21113359
Hydrocephalus; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal catheter
24.  Prevention of catheter lumen occlusion with rT-PA versus heparin (Pre-CLOT): study protocol of a randomized trial [ISRCTN35253449] 
BMC Nephrology  2006;7:8.
Background
Many patients with end-stage renal disease use a central venous catheter for hemodialysis access. A large majority of these catheters malfunction within one year of insertion, with up to two-thirds due to thrombosis. The optimal solution for locking the catheter between hemodialysis sessions, to decrease the risk of thrombosis and catheter malfunction, is unknown. The Prevention of Catheter Lumen Occlusion with rt-PA versus Heparin (PreCLOT) study will determine if use of weekly rt-PA, compared to regular heparin, as a catheter locking solution, will decrease the risk of catheter malfunction.
Methods/Design
The study population will consist of patients requiring chronic hemodialysis thrice weekly who are dialyzed with a newly inserted permanent dual-lumen central venous catheter. Patients randomized to the treatment arm will receive rt-PA 1 mg per lumen once per week, with heparin 5,000 units per ml as a catheter locking solution for the remaining two sessions. Patients randomized to the control arm will receive heparin 5,000 units per ml as a catheter locking solution after each dialysis session. The study treatment period will be six months, with 340 patients to be recruited from 14 sites across Canada. The primary outcome will be catheter malfunction, based on mean blood flow parameters while on hemodialysis, with a secondary outcome of catheter-related bacteremia. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to assess the cost of maintaining a catheter using rt-PA as a locking solution, compared to the use of heparin.
Discussion
Results from this study will determine if use of weekly rt-PA, compared to heparin, will decrease catheter malfunction, as well as assess the cost-effectiveness of these locking solutions.
doi:10.1186/1471-2369-7-8
PMCID: PMC1459124  PMID: 16608513
25.  Laparoscopic Guidance or Revision of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts in Children 
Background:
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt is the preferred treatment for hydrocephalus. Known complications include infection, obstruction, and disconnection with the fractured fragment migrating in the peritoneal cavity. We report 17 cases of laparoscopic evaluation and revision of ventriculoperitoneal shunts in children.
Methods:
From January 2000 through October 2002, we retrospectively reviewed our experience with laparoscopy and ventriculoperitoneal shunts.
Results:
Laparoscopy was performed in 17 children with a malfunctioning shunt, presumed shunt dislodgment or disconnection, reinsertion of a shunt after externalization, and primary shunt placement. Six patients (35%) were converted to an open laparotomy due to dense adhesions. Eleven patients (65%) underwent successful laparoscopic-assisted ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement: 5/11 (45%) had lysis of adhesions or pseudocyst marsupialization with repositioning of a functional shunt, or both; 3/11 (27%) had successful retrieval of a disconnected catheter with reinsertion of a new catheter; 2/11 (18%) had laparoscopic confirmation of satisfactory placement and function, requiring no revision; 1/11 (9%) had an initial shunt placed with laparoscopic guidance due to the obesity. Operative time for the laparoscopic procedure ranged from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. All laparoscopic procedures used 1-mm or two 5-mm ports. Perioperatively, no adverse neurological sequelae occurred due to the pneumoperitoneum.
Conclusion:
Laparoscopic guidance or revision of ventriculoperitoneal shunts permits (1) direct visualization of catheter insertion within the peritoneal cavity, (2) satisfactory positioning, (3) lysis of adhesions or marsupialization with catheter repositioning, or both, and (4) retrieval of fractured catheters.
PMCID: PMC3015673  PMID: 16709376
Laparoscopy; Ventriculoperitoneal shunt; Children; Hydrocephalus

Results 1-25 (1195271)