经皮腹膜透析与手术置管:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Juanita N Chui, Paul Kim, Tess E Cooper, Tahmid Zaman, Ahmer Hameed, Melanie Wyld, Henry Pleass, Animesh Singla
{"title":"经皮腹膜透析与手术置管:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Juanita N Chui, Paul Kim, Tess E Cooper, Tahmid Zaman, Ahmer Hameed, Melanie Wyld, Henry Pleass, Animesh Singla","doi":"10.1111/ans.19315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is used as a kidney replacement therapy for patients with kidney failure. Institutional practices vary considerably, and the optimal technique for insertion of PD catheters is unknown. This study compared the efficacy and safety of surgical versus percutaneous approaches to PD catheter insertion for patients with end-stage kidney disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) were systematically searched and analysed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible RCTs for inclusion were those that compared surgical versus percutaneous approaches to catheter insertion for patients undergoing PD dialysis. Outcomes of interest were patient- and catheter-related complications. In this study risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies (397 participants) were included. With regards to surgical approaches, only one study evaluated laparoscopic insertion; all other studies reported on open surgical techniques. Percutaneous insertion techniques varied significantly between the studies. No difference in patient mortality was found (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.43-1.57, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Percutaneous techniques were associated with lower rates of early peritonitis (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and long-term catheter failure (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.47-1.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) than surgical approaches. Percutaneous catheter insertion was also associated with reduced late peri-catheter leak rates (RR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.98, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and peri-procedural complications (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07-0.90, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). The overall risk of bias was moderate, and certainty of evidence was low or very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst percutaneous PD insertion techniques may have lower early and late complications compared to surgical technique, there was a lack of high-quality evidence comparing outcomes between contemporary percutaneous and surgical PD catheter insertion techniques. Future RCTs are required to compare the safety and efficacy of modern percutaneous with laparoscopic techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous versus surgical catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Juanita N Chui, Paul Kim, Tess E Cooper, Tahmid Zaman, Ahmer Hameed, Melanie Wyld, Henry Pleass, Animesh Singla\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ans.19315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is used as a kidney replacement therapy for patients with kidney failure. Institutional practices vary considerably, and the optimal technique for insertion of PD catheters is unknown. This study compared the efficacy and safety of surgical versus percutaneous approaches to PD catheter insertion for patients with end-stage kidney disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) were systematically searched and analysed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible RCTs for inclusion were those that compared surgical versus percutaneous approaches to catheter insertion for patients undergoing PD dialysis. Outcomes of interest were patient- and catheter-related complications. In this study risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies (397 participants) were included. With regards to surgical approaches, only one study evaluated laparoscopic insertion; all other studies reported on open surgical techniques. Percutaneous insertion techniques varied significantly between the studies. No difference in patient mortality was found (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.43-1.57, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Percutaneous techniques were associated with lower rates of early peritonitis (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and long-term catheter failure (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.47-1.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) than surgical approaches. Percutaneous catheter insertion was also associated with reduced late peri-catheter leak rates (RR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.98, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and peri-procedural complications (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07-0.90, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). The overall risk of bias was moderate, and certainty of evidence was low or very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst percutaneous PD insertion techniques may have lower early and late complications compared to surgical technique, there was a lack of high-quality evidence comparing outcomes between contemporary percutaneous and surgical PD catheter insertion techniques. Future RCTs are required to compare the safety and efficacy of modern percutaneous with laparoscopic techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19315\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19315","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腹膜透析(PD)是肾衰竭患者的一种肾脏替代疗法。机构实践差异很大,最佳技术插入PD导管是未知的。本研究比较了手术与经皮入路对终末期肾病患者PD导管置入的疗效和安全性。方法:系统检索电子数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL)并分析相关随机对照试验(rct)。纳入的符合条件的随机对照试验是那些比较PD透析患者手术与经皮入路置管的试验。结果感兴趣的是患者和导管相关的并发症。本研究使用Cochrane随机对照试验偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。证据的确定性采用建议分级评估(GRADE)方法进行评估。结果:纳入4项研究(397名受试者)。关于手术入路,只有一项研究评估了腹腔镜插入;所有其他研究都报道了开放手术技术。经皮插入技术在研究中有显著差异。两组患者死亡率无差异(RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.43-1.57, I2 = 0%)。与手术入路相比,经皮穿刺技术的早期腹膜炎发生率(RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, I2 = 0%)和长期导管失效发生率(RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.47-1.00, I2 = 0%)较低。经皮置管还与降低晚期导管周围泄漏率(RR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.98, I2 = 0%)和术中并发症(RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07-0.90, I2 = 0%)相关。偏倚的总体风险为中等,证据的确定性为低或极低。结论:虽然与外科技术相比,经皮PD插入技术可能具有更低的早期和晚期并发症,但缺乏高质量的证据来比较当代经皮和外科PD导管插入技术的结果。未来的随机对照试验需要比较现代经皮和腹腔镜技术的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous versus surgical catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is used as a kidney replacement therapy for patients with kidney failure. Institutional practices vary considerably, and the optimal technique for insertion of PD catheters is unknown. This study compared the efficacy and safety of surgical versus percutaneous approaches to PD catheter insertion for patients with end-stage kidney disease.

Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) were systematically searched and analysed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible RCTs for inclusion were those that compared surgical versus percutaneous approaches to catheter insertion for patients undergoing PD dialysis. Outcomes of interest were patient- and catheter-related complications. In this study risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results: Four studies (397 participants) were included. With regards to surgical approaches, only one study evaluated laparoscopic insertion; all other studies reported on open surgical techniques. Percutaneous insertion techniques varied significantly between the studies. No difference in patient mortality was found (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.43-1.57, I2 = 0%). Percutaneous techniques were associated with lower rates of early peritonitis (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, I2 = 0%) and long-term catheter failure (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.47-1.00, I2 = 0%) than surgical approaches. Percutaneous catheter insertion was also associated with reduced late peri-catheter leak rates (RR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.98, I2 = 0%) and peri-procedural complications (RR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.07-0.90, I2 = 0%). The overall risk of bias was moderate, and certainty of evidence was low or very low.

Conclusions: Whilst percutaneous PD insertion techniques may have lower early and late complications compared to surgical technique, there was a lack of high-quality evidence comparing outcomes between contemporary percutaneous and surgical PD catheter insertion techniques. Future RCTs are required to compare the safety and efficacy of modern percutaneous with laparoscopic techniques.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信