Cargando…

Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method

PURPOSE: The conventional trocar and cannula method in peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion has its limitation in clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare a modified method for percutaneous PD catheter insertion with the conventional method, and demonstrate advantages of the mod...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Yong Kyu, Yang, Pil-Sung, Park, Kyoung Sook, Choi, Kyu Hun, Kim, Beom Seok
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26069120
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.981
_version_ 1782378077965254656
author Lee, Yong Kyu
Yang, Pil-Sung
Park, Kyoung Sook
Choi, Kyu Hun
Kim, Beom Seok
author_facet Lee, Yong Kyu
Yang, Pil-Sung
Park, Kyoung Sook
Choi, Kyu Hun
Kim, Beom Seok
author_sort Lee, Yong Kyu
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The conventional trocar and cannula method in peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion has its limitation in clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare a modified method for percutaneous PD catheter insertion with the conventional method, and demonstrate advantages of the modified method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients at a single center who had percutaneous PD catheters inserted by nephrologists from January 2006 until September 2012, using either a modified method (group M) or the conventional trocar and cannula method (group C), were retrospectively analyzed, in terms of baseline characteristics, complications experienced up to 3 months after the procedure, and the suitability of the procedure for patients. RESULTS: Group M included 82 subjects, while group C included 66 cases. The overall early complication rate in group M (1.2%) was significantly lower than that in group C (19.7%) (p<0.001). The catheter revision rate during timeframe for early complications was significantly lower in group M (0%) than in group C (6.1%) (p=0.024). When comparing Procedure time (1 h 3 min±16 min vs. 1 h 36 min±19 min, p<0.01), immediate post-procedural pain (2.43±1.80 vs. 3.14±2.07, p<0.05), and post-procedure days until ambulation (3.95±1.13 days vs. 6.17±1.34 days, p<0.01), group M was significantly lower than group C. There was no significant difference in total hospitalization period (14.71±7.05 days vs. 13.86±3.7 days). CONCLUSION: Our modified PD catheter insertion method shows its advantages in early complication rate, early complications revision rate, and the patients' conveniences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4479866
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Yonsei University College of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44798662015-07-01 Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method Lee, Yong Kyu Yang, Pil-Sung Park, Kyoung Sook Choi, Kyu Hun Kim, Beom Seok Yonsei Med J Original Article PURPOSE: The conventional trocar and cannula method in peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion has its limitation in clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare a modified method for percutaneous PD catheter insertion with the conventional method, and demonstrate advantages of the modified method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients at a single center who had percutaneous PD catheters inserted by nephrologists from January 2006 until September 2012, using either a modified method (group M) or the conventional trocar and cannula method (group C), were retrospectively analyzed, in terms of baseline characteristics, complications experienced up to 3 months after the procedure, and the suitability of the procedure for patients. RESULTS: Group M included 82 subjects, while group C included 66 cases. The overall early complication rate in group M (1.2%) was significantly lower than that in group C (19.7%) (p<0.001). The catheter revision rate during timeframe for early complications was significantly lower in group M (0%) than in group C (6.1%) (p=0.024). When comparing Procedure time (1 h 3 min±16 min vs. 1 h 36 min±19 min, p<0.01), immediate post-procedural pain (2.43±1.80 vs. 3.14±2.07, p<0.05), and post-procedure days until ambulation (3.95±1.13 days vs. 6.17±1.34 days, p<0.01), group M was significantly lower than group C. There was no significant difference in total hospitalization period (14.71±7.05 days vs. 13.86±3.7 days). CONCLUSION: Our modified PD catheter insertion method shows its advantages in early complication rate, early complications revision rate, and the patients' conveniences. Yonsei University College of Medicine 2015-07-01 2015-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4479866/ /pubmed/26069120 http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.981 Text en © Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Yong Kyu
Yang, Pil-Sung
Park, Kyoung Sook
Choi, Kyu Hun
Kim, Beom Seok
Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title_full Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title_fullStr Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title_full_unstemmed Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title_short Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method
title_sort modified peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: comparison with a conventional method
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26069120
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.981
work_keys_str_mv AT leeyongkyu modifiedperitonealdialysiscatheterinsertioncomparisonwithaconventionalmethod
AT yangpilsung modifiedperitonealdialysiscatheterinsertioncomparisonwithaconventionalmethod
AT parkkyoungsook modifiedperitonealdialysiscatheterinsertioncomparisonwithaconventionalmethod
AT choikyuhun modifiedperitonealdialysiscatheterinsertioncomparisonwithaconventionalmethod
AT kimbeomseok modifiedperitonealdialysiscatheterinsertioncomparisonwithaconventionalmethod