|
Laparoscopic versus open-surgery catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: A meta-analysis of outcomes
Guled Abdijalil1, Shen Shuijuan2
1 Department of Nephrology, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine); School of Medicine, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China
2 Department of Nephrology, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China
| Date of Submission | 12-Oct-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 24-Feb-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-Dec-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Guled Abdijalil,
Department of Nephrology, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing University, School of Medicine), Shaoxing, Zhejiang - 312 000
China
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None DOI: 10.4103/ijn.IJN_482_20
The peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) can be placed either through the laparoscopic technique, percutaneous technique or surgical procedures. The utilization of these PDC placement procedures is based on successful placement and reduced risk of development of complications. The main objective of this study was to compare the complications associated with laparoscopic vs. open-surgery PDC placement procedure. Literature for this review was obtained from PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The literature search was limited to studies published in the period between 1998 and 2019. The meta-analysis was done using Stata Version 12. The results showed significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group (relative risk [RR] =0.58; 95% CI: 0.42–0.8; P = 0.031). Furthermore, there was no significant statistical difference in dialysate leakage (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51–1.17, P = 0.116) peritonitis (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6–1.06, P = 0.349) and exit-site infection (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.65–1.09, P = 0.834) between the laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement groups. In conclusion, the laparoscopic PDC placement procedure was superior to open surgery in regards to catheter malfunction. Additionally, the choice of treatment procedure should put in consideration factors such as cost and comfortability of the patient.
Keywords: Peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion, CAPD catheter insertion, open surgery, laparoscopic PDC insertion
| Introduction | |  |
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is one of the documented alternative treatments for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, some of the challenges associated with this treatment method include catheter-related infections, leakage of dialysate and outflow obstruction among others.[1] Since the introduction of the PD in 1976, increased use of the treatment method has been reported by patients. In the period between 2009 and 2013 for instance, there was a 68% increase in use of PD among ESRD patients.[2] The increased acceptance of the treatment procedure was attributed to improved quality of life among patients, improved catheter survival rates after the first year of dialysis initiation and good protection of residual renal functioning.[3]
The placement of the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) can be done through open surgical method, laparoscopic procedure, percutaneous fluoroscopic procedure and peritoneoscopic implantation.[4] Among the PDC procedures, the open surgical method is commonly used though constrained by high risks of complications among the ESRD patients.[5] In recent years, the laparoscopic procedure has been recommended since it is less invasive and has good visibility during catheter placement.[1] Some studies have, therefore, documented high efficacy of the laparoscopic catheter insertion technique as compared to open surgery.[6] On the other hand, some researchers report that the laparoscopic technique cannot avert the complications of PD.[1],[7]
In the midst of the contradicting information, no studies have extensively and exhaustively compared the open-surgery and laparoscopic PDC placement procedures. Furthermore, most recent meta-analysis studies have not incorporated the current clinical studies.[8] Additionally, ESRD is significantly contributing to the global burden of disease with annual increasing rate of 20,000 cases.[9],[10] Thus, this study aimed at comparing the laparoscopic and open-surgery catheter placement procedures in regards to catheter-related complications.
| Methodology | | |
Search strategy
A comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar for studies focusing on the comparison between laparoscopic and open-surgery catheter placement procedures in PD. The following keywords were used in the search: PD, open surgery, laparoscopic, catheter placement and ESRD.
Study selection
The inclusion criteria included studies that were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies or retrospective studies. It also included studies that measured PDC placement outcomes, that is catheter malfunctioning, dialysate leakages, peritonitis and exit-site infection. Additionally, only the most recent clinical studies were considered. Studies that were excluded were case reports, letters and studies with unavailable data. Also, practical guides/manuals, non-English studies and paediatric studies were also excluded from the analysis. Two independent authors reviewed all articles obtained in the initial search against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements among the reviewers were resolved through consensus.
Data abstraction
Out of the 50 potential studies, 35 of them were eliminated due to duplication, unavailability of data, focusing on paediatric studies, being non-comparative studies and being written in a non-English language [Figure 1]. Data were abstracted using a standard form that captured the number of patients, demographic characteristics, study design and PDC placement-related outcomes. | Figure 1: Selection strategy for studies to be included in meta-analysis
Click here to view |
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 12 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX 77845, USA). The random effects model was employed to assess the key outcomes of interest (dialysate leakage, catheter malfunction, peritonitis and exit-site infection). Forest plots were employed to show the between study variation in effect sizes. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. The heterogeneity across the studies was evaluated using the Q statistic and I2 index. Statistical analysis was done at 95% confidence interval.
| Results | | |
The studies included in the meta-analysis followed 4819 patients. The patients included in the study were adults aged 51.5 ± 33.5 years. The study period for the incorporated studies was from 1992 to 2019 as shown in [Table 1]. Based on the meta-analysis, there was no statistical significant difference in dialysate leakages between the laparoscopic and open-surgery groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51–1.17, P = 0.116) as shown in [Figure 2]. There was a significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42–0.80, P = 0.031). Comparison of peritonitis between laparoscopic and open-surgery group showed that neither of the procedures had inferior incidences of peritonitis (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6–1.06, P = 0.349). There was no significant difference in exit-site infection between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.65–1.09, P = 0.834). | Figure 2: Relative ratio of dialysate leakages between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement technique
Click here to view |
Publication bias
Funnel plots of studies included in the meta-analysis reporting on occurrence of dialysate leakage, catheter malfunction, peritonitis and exit-site infection between laparoscopic and open-surgery group are shown in [Figure 6],[Figure 7],[Figure 8],[Figure 9]. All funnel plots were symmetrical and thus there was no publication bias. | Figure 3: Relative ratio of catheter malfunction between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 4: Relative ratio of peritonitis between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 5: Relative ratio of exit-site infection between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 6: Funnel plot from all studies comparing dialysate leakage between laparoscopic and open.surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 7: Funnel plot from all studies comparing catheter malfunction between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 8: Funnel plot from all studies comparing peritonitis between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
 | Figure 9: Funnel plot from all studies comparing exit-site infection between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement techniques
Click here to view |
Risk of bias assessment
Risk of bias was assessed using Harbord test as shown in [Table 2],[Table 3],[Table 4],[Table 5]. Based on the analysis, the meta-analysis was not significantly affected by small studies. Therefore, the meta-analysis could be affected by other factors and not small study effect. | Table 2: Harbord test assessing the presence of small study effects in 14 studies comparing dialysate leakage between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedure
Click here to view |
 | Table 3: Harbord test assessing the presence of small study effects in 14 studies comparing catheter malfunction between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedure
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Harbord test assessing the presence of small study effects in 12 studies comparing dialysate leakage between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedure
Click here to view |
 | Table 5: Harbord test assessing the presence of small study effects in 11 studies comparing dialysate leakage between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedure
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
The success of PD is measured by reduction of catheter-relatedcomplications.Catheter-related complications may result to technical failures which may reduce catheter survival and may consequently warrant for haemodialysis.[26]
The results of this meta-analysis show that there was no statistically significant difference in dialysate leakages between the laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement. The results of this study were similar to other meta-analysis which reported no significant difference in dialysate leakages between the laparoscopic and open-surgery groups.[27],[28] A number of articles have been published which are concurrent with the findings of the meta-analysis. For instance, a prospective randomized study done by Jwo et al. reported no significant difference in dialysate leakage between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group.[1] Similarly a review done by John H. Crabtree revealed no differences in the incidences of dialysate leakage between open surgery and laparoscopic group.[22] However, it is noteworthy to note that dialysate leakage is influenced by other factors such as the time when PD is started. Beginning PD immediately after insertion increases the risk to occurrence of leakage due to inadequate healing of the peritoneum. Additionally, the number of cuffs in a catheter has been documented to influence the occurrence of leaks, especially for the laparoscopic procedure.[28]
The results of the meta-analysis are in agreement with other meta-analysis which concluded that there was significant difference in catheter malfunction between laparoscopic and open-surgery group.[28] Similarly, other studies have reported laparoscopic as a superior catheter placement procedure with lower incidences of catheter malfunction as compared to open surgery. For instance, the study by Crabtree and Fishman which had the highest weight (19.64%) reported higher incidences (17.5%) in the open-surgery group as compared to the laparoscopic group (0.5%).[22] However based on a study conducted in the USA, there was no significance difference in incidences of catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group.[19] The inconsistency among studies could be attributed to differences in catheters used in different studies.[28] For instance, studies have reported that use of coiled catheters tends to reduce incidences of catheter malfunction.[29] Additionally, the size of the studies may confound the results of the meta-analysis.
Peritonitis remains a big impediment to the application of PD and a contributor to patients going back to haemodialysis.[30] Based on the results of the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in peritonitis between the laparoscopic and the open-surgery group (P = 0.349). Similarly, based on other meta-analyses, neither the laparoscopic nor the open-surgery PDC placement was superior to the other in terms of peritonitis.[27],[31] It is worth noting that the results of meta-analysis could be potentially influenced by factors such as application of perioperative antibiotics which has been reported to significantly reduce the risk of early development of peritonitis.[32] Additionally, studies have documented that there is still no consensus on the type of antibiotics to use to prevent occurrence of peritonitis as well as when the antibiotics should be administered.[28]
Our meta-analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in exit-site infection between laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement (P = 0.834). Based on a study which had the highest weight (34.95%), the incidences of exit-site infection among the open-surgery and laparoscopic group were not significantly different.[19] Furthermore, the results of this study were in agreement with a previous meta-analyses.[8],[31] Potential confounding factor of occurrence of exit-site infection in the open-surgery and laparoscopic group is the time when PD is started after the insertion of a catheter. Some studies recommend immediate start of PD after catheter insertion,[20] other studies recommend a waiting period of 3–5 days[23] while some authors suggest a waiting period of 2 weeks.[12],[21],[22]
The limitation of the study is that 6 of the 17 studies included in the meta-analysis were non-randomized. The non-randomized studies could have contributed to bias due to uncaptured differences between the groups. Furthermore, the estimates generated were not adjusted and hence some confounding factors may have impacted negatively on the study. Nevertheless, despite the limitations, the meta-analysis provides meaningful information regarding complications associated with laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedures.
| Conclusion | | |
The present study shows that there was statistically significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open-surgery group. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in dialysate leakage, peritonitis and exit-site infection between the laparoscopic and open-surgery PDC placement procedures.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Jwo SC, Chen KS, Lee CC, Chen HY. Prospective randomized study for comparison of open surgery with laparoscopic-assisted placement of Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter-a single center experience and literature review. J Surg Res 2010;159:489-96.  |
| 2. | Hathaway PB, Jordahl TB. Who Shouldn ' t Get a Percutaneous PD Catheter ? Improving clinical outcomes with optimal patient selection and percutaneous techniques for peritoneal dialysis Endovasc Today 2014. |
| 3. | Heaf JG, Wehberg S. Relative survival of peritoneal dialysis and haemodialysis patients: Effect of cohort and mode of dialysis initiation. PLoS One 2014;9:1-10. |
| 4. | Medani S, Shantier M, Hussein W, Wall C, Mellotte G. A comparative analysis of percutaneous and open surgical techniques for peritoneal catheter placement. Perit Dial Int 2012;32:628-35. |
| 5. | Tiong HY, Poh J, Sunderaraj K, Wu YJ, Consigliere DT. Surgical complications of Tenckhoff catheters used in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Singapore Med J 2006;47:707-11. |
| 6. | Batey CA, Crane JJ, Jenkins MA, Johnston TD, Munch LC. Mini-laparoscopy-assisted placement of tenckhoff catheters: An improved technique to facilitate peritoneal dialysis. J Endourol 2002;16:1-4. |
| 7. | Bae IE, Chung WK, Choi ST, Kang J. Laparoscopic internal fixation is a viable alternative option for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion. J Korean Surg Soc 2012;83:381-7. |
| 8. | Chen Y, Shao Y, Xu J. The survival and complication rates of laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015;25:440-3. |
| 9. | Ishigami J, Matsushita K. Clinical epidemiology of infectious disease among patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin Exp Nephrol 2018;23:437-47. |
| 10. | Harding JL, Pavkov ME, Magliano DJ, Shaw JE, Gregg EW. Global trends in diabetes complications: A review of current evidence. Diabetologia 2019;62:3-16. |
| 11. | Tuncer M, Yardimsever M, Ersoy F. Laparoscopic omental fixation technique vs open surgical placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1749-55. |
| 12. | Soontrapornchai P, Simapatanapong T. Comparison of open and laparoscopic secure placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Endosc 2005;19:137-9. |
| 13. | Wright MJ, Bel K, Johnson BF, Eadington DW, Sellars L, Farr MJ. Randomized prospective comparison of laparoscopic and open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion. Perit Dial Int 1999;19:372–5. |
| 14. | Prabhakar N, Aljamal YN, Saleem HY, Baloul MS, Nyberg SL, Farley DR. Outcomes of laparoscopic and open CAPD catheter placement: A single-center experience. Surg Open Sci 2019;1:20-4. |
| 15. | Atapour A, Asabadabi HR, Karimi S, Eslami A, Beigi AA. Comparing the outcomes of open surgical procedure and percutaneously peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion using laparoscopic needle: A two month follow-up study. J Res Med Sci Off J Isfahan Univ Med Sci 2011;16:463. |
| 16. | Cox TC, Blair LJ, Huntington CR, Prasad T, Kercher KW, Heniford BT, et al. Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. Surg Endosc 2016;30:899-905. |
| 17. | van Laanen JHH, Cornelis T, Mees BM, Litjens EJ, van Loon MM, Tordoir JHM, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing open versus laparoscopic placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter and outcomes: The CAPD I trial. Perit Dial Int 2018;38:104-12. |
| 18. | Bircan HY, Kulah E. Effects of a novel peritoneal dialysis: The open versus laparoscopic preperitoneal tunneling technique. Ther Apher Dial 2016;20:66-72. |
| 19. | Gadallah MF, Pervez A, El-Shahawy MA, Sorrells D, Zibari G, McDonald J, et al. Peritoneoscopic versus surgical placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters: A prospective randomized study on outcome. Am J Kidney Dis 1999;33:118-22. |
| 20. | Tsimoyiannis ECT, Siakas P, Glantzounis G, Pappas M, Manataki A. Laparoscopic placement of the tenckhoff catheter for dialvsis peritoneal. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2000;10:6-9. |
| 21. | Gajjar AH, Rhoden DH, Kathuria P, Kaul R, Udupa AD, Jennings WC. Peritoneal dialysis catheters: Laparoscopic versus traditional placement techniques and outcomes. Am J Surg 2007;194:872-6. |
| 22. | Crabtree JH, Fishman A. A laparoscopic method for optimal peritoneal dialysis access. Am Surg 2005;71:135-43. |
| 23. | Draganic B, James A, Booth M, Gani JS. Comparative experience of a simple technique for laparoscopic chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:735-9. |
| 24. | Eklund B, Groop PH, Halme L, Honkanen E, Kala AR. Peritoneal dialysis access: A comparison of peritoneoscopic and surgical insertion techniques. Scand J Urol 1998;32:405-8. |
| 25. | Sun TYT, Voss D, Beechey D, Lam-Po-Tang M. Comparison of peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion techniques: Peritoneoscopic, radiological and laparoscopic: A single-centre study. Nephrology 2016;21:416-22. |
| 26. | Maio R, Figueiredo N, Costa P. Laparoscopic placement of Tenckhoff catheters for peritoneal dialysis: A safe, effective, and reproducible procedure. Perit Dial Int 2008;28:170-3. |
| 27. | Xie H, Zhang W, Cheng J, He Q. Laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nephrol 2012;13-69. |
| 28. | Hagen S, Lafranca JA, Steyerberg EW, Ijzernams JN, Dor FJ. Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:56531. |
| 29. | Swartz R, Messana J, Rocher L, Reynolds J, Starmman B, Lees P. The curled catheter: Dependable device for percutaneous peritoneal access. Perit Dial Int 1990;10:231-5. |
| 30. | Boujelbane L, Fu N, Chapla K, Melnick D, Redfield RR, Waheed S, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical insertion of PD catheters in dialysis patients: A meta-analysis. J Vasc Access 2015;16:498-505. |
| 31. | Strippoli GF, Tong A, Johnson D, Schena FP, Craig JC. Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2: 1-54CD004680. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004680.pub2. |
| 32. | Strippoli GFM, Hons MPH, Tong A, Johnson D, Schena FP, Craig JC. Antimicrobial agents to prevent peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis 2004;44:591-603. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]
|
|
Editorial Board
