Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Placement of a Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter and Outcomes: The CAPD I Trial.

Jorinde H H van Laanen, Tom Cornelis, Barend M Mees, Elisabeth J Litjens, Magda M van Loon, Jan H M Tordoir, Arnoud G Peppelenbosch
{"title":"Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Placement of a Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter and Outcomes: The CAPD I Trial.","authors":"Jorinde H H van Laanen,&nbsp;Tom Cornelis,&nbsp;Barend M Mees,&nbsp;Elisabeth J Litjens,&nbsp;Magda M van Loon,&nbsp;Jan H M Tordoir,&nbsp;Arnoud G Peppelenbosch","doi":"10.3747/pdi.2017.00023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the best operation technique, open versus laparoscopic, for insertion of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter with regard to clinical success. Clinical success was defined as an adequate function of the catheter 2 - 4 weeks after insertion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients with end-stage renal disease who were suitable for PD and gave informed consent were randomized for either open surgery or laparoscopic surgery. A previous laparotomy was not considered an exclusion criterion. Laparoscopic placement had the advantage of pre-peritoneal tunneling, the possibility for adhesiolysis, and placement of the catheter under direct vision. Catheter fixation techniques, omentopexy, or other adjunct procedures were not performed. Other measured parameters were in-hospital morbidity and mortality and post-operative infections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2010 and 2016, 95 patients were randomized to this study protocol. After exclusion of 5 patients for various reasons, 44 patients received an open procedure and 46 patients a laparoscopic procedure. Gender, age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, current hemodialysis, severe heart failure, and previous an abdominal operation were not significantly different between the groups. However, in the open surgery group, fewer patients had a previous median laparotomy compared with the laparoscopic group (6 vs 16 patients; <i>p</i> = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in mean operation time (36 ± 24 vs 38 ± 15 minutes) and hospital stay (2.1 ± 2.7 vs 3.1 ± 7.3 days) between the groups. In the open surgery group 77% of the patients had an adequate functioning catheter 2 - 4 weeks after insertion compared with 70% of patients in the laparoscopic group (<i>p</i> = not significant [NS]). In the open surgery group there was 1 post-operative death (2%) compared with none in the laparoscopic group (<i>p</i> = NS). The morbidity in both groups was low and not significantly different. In the open surgery group, 2 patients had an exit-site infection and 1 patient had a paramedian wound infection. In the laparoscopic group, 1 patient had a transient cardiac event, 1 patient had intraabdominal bleeding requiring reoperation, and 1 patient had fluid leakage that could be managed conservatively. The survival curve demonstrated a good long-term function of PD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing open vs laparoscopic placement of PD catheters demonstrates equal clinical success rates between the 2 techniques. Advanced laparoscopic techniques such as catheter fixation techniques and omentopexy might further improve clinical outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":519220,"journal":{"name":"Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis","volume":" ","pages":"104-112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3747/pdi.2017.00023","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peritoneal Dialysis International: Journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2017.00023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

Objective: To determine the best operation technique, open versus laparoscopic, for insertion of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter with regard to clinical success. Clinical success was defined as an adequate function of the catheter 2 - 4 weeks after insertion.

Methods: All patients with end-stage renal disease who were suitable for PD and gave informed consent were randomized for either open surgery or laparoscopic surgery. A previous laparotomy was not considered an exclusion criterion. Laparoscopic placement had the advantage of pre-peritoneal tunneling, the possibility for adhesiolysis, and placement of the catheter under direct vision. Catheter fixation techniques, omentopexy, or other adjunct procedures were not performed. Other measured parameters were in-hospital morbidity and mortality and post-operative infections.

Results: Between 2010 and 2016, 95 patients were randomized to this study protocol. After exclusion of 5 patients for various reasons, 44 patients received an open procedure and 46 patients a laparoscopic procedure. Gender, age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, current hemodialysis, severe heart failure, and previous an abdominal operation were not significantly different between the groups. However, in the open surgery group, fewer patients had a previous median laparotomy compared with the laparoscopic group (6 vs 16 patients; p = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in mean operation time (36 ± 24 vs 38 ± 15 minutes) and hospital stay (2.1 ± 2.7 vs 3.1 ± 7.3 days) between the groups. In the open surgery group 77% of the patients had an adequate functioning catheter 2 - 4 weeks after insertion compared with 70% of patients in the laparoscopic group (p = not significant [NS]). In the open surgery group there was 1 post-operative death (2%) compared with none in the laparoscopic group (p = NS). The morbidity in both groups was low and not significantly different. In the open surgery group, 2 patients had an exit-site infection and 1 patient had a paramedian wound infection. In the laparoscopic group, 1 patient had a transient cardiac event, 1 patient had intraabdominal bleeding requiring reoperation, and 1 patient had fluid leakage that could be managed conservatively. The survival curve demonstrated a good long-term function of PD.

Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing open vs laparoscopic placement of PD catheters demonstrates equal clinical success rates between the 2 techniques. Advanced laparoscopic techniques such as catheter fixation techniques and omentopexy might further improve clinical outcome.

比较开放与腹腔镜放置腹膜透析导管和结果的随机对照试验:CAPD I试验。
目的:探讨开放式与腹腔镜下腹膜透析(PD)导管置入的最佳手术技术及其临床效果。临床成功的定义是导管在插入后2 - 4周具有足够的功能。方法:所有适合PD且知情同意的终末期肾病患者随机选择开放手术或腹腔镜手术。既往剖腹手术不作为排除标准。腹腔镜置管的优点是在腹膜前隧道,粘连溶解的可能性,以及在直视下放置导管。没有进行导管固定技术、网膜固定术或其他辅助手术。其他测量参数包括住院发病率和死亡率以及术后感染。结果:2010年至2016年间,95名患者被随机纳入该研究方案。由于各种原因排除5例患者后,44例患者接受开腹手术,46例患者接受腹腔镜手术。性别、年龄、身体质量指数(BMI)、高血压、当前血液透析、严重心力衰竭和既往腹部手术在组间无显著差异。然而,在开放手术组中,与腹腔镜组相比,以前有过剖腹切开术的患者较少(6例对16例;P = 0.027)。两组患者平均手术时间(36±24 vs 38±15 min)和住院时间(2.1±2.7 vs 3.1±7.3 d)比较,差异无统计学意义。在开放手术组中,77%的患者在插入2 - 4周后仍有足够的导管功能,而腹腔镜组中这一比例为70% (p =无统计学意义[NS])。开放手术组有1例(2%)术后死亡,而腹腔镜组无一例(p = NS)。两组发病率均较低,差异无统计学意义。在开放手术组中,2例患者发生出口部位感染,1例患者发生护理伤口感染。在腹腔镜组中,1例患者发生短暂性心脏事件,1例患者发生腹内出血需要再次手术,1例患者发生液体漏,可保守处理。生存曲线显示PD具有良好的长期功能。结论:这项随机对照试验(RCT)比较了开放式和腹腔镜下放置PD导管,两种技术的临床成功率相同。先进的腹腔镜技术如导管固定技术和网膜固定术可能进一步改善临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信