Indian Journal of Nephrology Home 

REVIEW ARTICLE
[Download PDF]
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 406--413

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

Correspondence Address:
Guled Abdijalil
Department of Nephrology, Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine), Shaoxing, Zhejiang 312 000
China

Abstract

Introduction: 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 the successful placement and reduced risk of development of complications. The main objective of this study was to compare the complications associated with the laparoscopic technique to those linked to open surgery during PDC placement. Methods: The literature for this review was obtained from the 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. Results: The results showed a significant difference in catheter malfunction rates between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–0.8, P = 0.031). There was no statistically significant 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 two groups. Conclusion: In conclusion, the laparoscopic PDC placement procedure was superior to open surgery with regard to catheter malfunction.

How to cite this article:
Abdijalil G, Shuijuan S. Laparoscopic versus open surgery catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: A meta-analysis of outcomes.Indian J Nephrol 2022;32:406-413

How to cite this URL:
Abdijalil G, Shuijuan S. Laparoscopic versus open surgery catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Indian J Nephrol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 10 ];32:406-413
Available from: https://www.indianjnephrol.org/text.asp?2022/32/5/406/349360

Full Text

 Introduction



Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is one of the accepted alternative treatment methods 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 the use of PD among ESRD patients.[2] The increased acceptance of the treatment procedure was attributed to the improved quality of life among patients, the 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 an open surgical method, laparoscopic procedure, percutaneous fluoroscopic procedure, or peritoneoscopic implantation.[4] Among the PDC procedures, the open surgical method is commonly used though constrained by high risks of complications among ESRD patients.[5] In recent years, the laparoscopic procedure has been recommended because it is less invasive and has good visibility during catheter placement.[1] Some studies have, therefore, documented the high efficacy of the laparoscopic catheter insertion technique as compared with open surgery.[6] On the other hand, some researchers report that the laparoscopic technique cannot avert the complications of PD.[1],[7]

Amid the contradicting information, no studies have extensively and exhaustively compared the open surgery and laparoscopic PDC placement procedures. Furthermore, the most recent meta-analysis studies have not incorporated the current clinical studies.[8] ESRD continues to contribute significantly to the global burden of disease with an annual increasing rate of 20,000 cases.[9],[10] This study, thus, aimed at comparing the laparoscopic and open surgery catheter placement procedures with regard to catheter-related complications.

 Materials and Methods



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: peritoneal dialysis, open surgery, laparoscopic, catheter placement, and ESRD.

Study selection

The inclusion criteria incorporated studies that were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or historical studies. It also included studies that measured PDC placement complications, that is, catheter malfunctioning, dialysate leakages, peritonitis, and exit-site infections. Additionally, only the most recent clinical studies were considered (1998–2019). Studies that were excluded were case reports, letters, and studies with unavailable data. Also, practical guides/manuals, non-English studies, and pediatric studies were excluded from the study. Two independent authors reviewed all the 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 were eliminated due to duplication, unavailability of data, focusing on pediatric studies, being noncomparative studies, and having been written in a non-English language [Figure 1]. The data were abstracted using a standard form that captured the number of patients, demographic characteristics, study design, and PDC placement-related outcomes.{Figure 1}

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata Version 12 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Meta-analysis was done to compare the key outcomes of interest (dialysate leakage, catheter malfunction, peritonitis, and exit-site infection) between the open surgery and laparoscopic groups. Forest plots were employed to show the between-study variations in effect sizes. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Additionally, small study effects were investigated using Harbord's regression-based test for small study effects. The heterogeneity across the studies was evaluated using the Q statistic and I2 index. Statistical analysis was done at the 95% confidence interval.

 Results



The studies included in the meta-analysis followed 4,819 patients. The patients included in the study were adults aged 51.5 ± 33.5 years. The study period for the incorporated studies was from 1998 to 2019 as shown in [Table 1].{Table 1}

Based on the meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in dialysate leakages between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51–1.17, P = 0.116) [Figure 2]. There was a significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42–0.80, P = 0.031) [Figure 3]. Comparison of peritonitis between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups showed that neither of the procedures had inferior incidences of peritonitis (RR = 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6–1.06, P = 0.349) [Figure 4]. There was no significant difference in the exit-site infection between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.65–1.09, P = 0.834) [Figure 5].{Figure 2}{Figure 3}{Figure 4}{Figure 5}

Funnel plots of studies included in the meta-analysis reporting on the occurrence of dialysate leakage, catheter malfunction, peritonitis, and exit-site infection between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups are shown in [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9]. All funnel plots were symmetrical leading to the conclusion that there was no publication bias. The risk of bias was assessed using the Harbord test as shown in [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]. Based on the Harbord regression test, the meta-analysis was not significantly affected by small studies at P < 0.05. Therefore, the meta-analysis could be affected by other factors and not small study effects.{Figure 6}{Figure 7}{Figure 8}{Figure 9}{Table 2}{Table 3}{Table 4}{Table 5}

 Discussion



The success of PD is measured by the reduction of catheter-related complications. Catheter-related complications may result in technical failures that may reduce catheter survival and may consequently warrant hemodialysis.[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 that reported no significant difference in dialysate leakages between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.[27],[28] A number of articles have been published that are concurrent with the findings of the meta-analysis. For instance, a prospective randomized study conducted by Jwo et al.[1] reported no significant difference in dialysate leakage between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Similarly, a review done by Crabtree and Fishman[22] revealed no significant differences in the incidences of dialysate leakage between the open surgery and laparoscopic groups.[22] It is worth noting, however, that dialysate leakage is influenced by other factors such as the time when PD was started. Beginning PD immediately after insertion increases the risk 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-analyses that concluded that there was a significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.[28] Similarly, other studies have reported the laparoscopic procedure as a superior catheter placement procedure with lower incidences of catheter malfunction compared with open surgery. For instance, the study by Crabtree and Fishman,[22] which had the highest weight (19.64%), reported higher incidences (17.5%) in the open surgery group compared with the laparoscopic group (0.5%).[1] However, based on a study conducted in the United States, there was no significant difference in the incidences of catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.[19] The inconsistency among the studies could be attributed to the differences in the catheters used in different studies.[28] For instance, studies have reported that the 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 hemodialysis.[30] Based on the results of the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in peritonitis between the laparoscopic and the open surgery groups (P = 0.349). Similarly, another meta-analysis showed that neither the laparoscopic nor the open surgery PDC placement was superior to the other in terms of peritonitis.[27] The results of this study are also consistent with another meta-analysis that recorded no statistically significant difference in peritonitis between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.[31] It is worth noting that the results of the meta-analysis could be potentially influenced by factors such as the application of perioperative antibiotics, which has been reported to significantly reduce the risk of the early development of peritonitis.[32] Additionally, studies have documented that there is still no consensus on the type of antibiotics to use to prevent the 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 the laparoscopic and open surgery PDC placement (P = 0.834). Based on a study that had the highest weight (34.95%), the incidence of exit-site infection among the open surgery and laparoscopic groups was not significantly different.[19] Furthermore, the results of this study were in agreement with a previous meta-analysis that reported no statistically significant difference in exit-site infection between the patients subjected to a laparoscopic procedure and an open surgery PDC placement.[8] Additionally, based on a meta-analysis done in 2010, there was no difference in the exit-site infection between the two PDC placement procedures.[31] The potential confounding factor of occurrence of exit-site infection in the open surgery and laparoscopic groups is the time when PD was started after the insertion of a catheter. Some studies recommend the immediate start of PD after catheter insertion,[20] other studies recommend a waiting period of 3 to 5 days,[33] whereas some authors suggest a waiting period of 2 weeks.[12],[21],[22]

The limitation of the study is that six of the 17 studies included in the meta-analysis were nonrandomized. The nonrandomized studies could have contributed to the bias due to uncaptured differences between the groups. Furthermore, the estimates generated were not adjusted, and hence some confounding factors may have affected 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 a statistically significant difference in catheter malfunction between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. There were, however, 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

1Jwo S, Chen K, Lee C, Chen H. Prospective randomized study for comparison of open surgery with laparoscopic-assisted placement of tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter-A single center experience and literature... prospective randomized study for comparison of open surgery with lapar. J Surg Res 2008;159:489–96.
2Hathaway PB, Jordahl TB. Who shouldn't get a percutaneous PD catheter ? Improving clinical outcomes with optimal patient selection and percutaneous techniques for peritoneal dialysis. 014.
3Heaf 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.
4Medani 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.
5Tiong H, Poh J, Sunderaraj K, Wu YJ, Consigliere D. Surgical complications of Tenckhoff catheters used in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Singapore Med J 2006;47:707-11.
6Batey 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;16:681–4.
7Bae 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.
8Chen Y, Shao Y, Xu J. The survival and complication rates of laparoscopic versus open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: A meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015;25:440–3.
9Ishigami J, Matsushita K. Clinical epidemiology of infectious disease among patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin Exp Nephrol 2019;23:437-47.
10Harding JL, Pavkov ME, Magliano DJ, Shaw JE, Gregg EW. Global trends in diabetes complications: A review of current evidence. Diabetologia 2019;62:3-16.
11Tuncer M, Yardimsever M, Ersoy F. Laparoscopic omental fixation technique vs open surgical placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1749–55.
12Soontrapornchai P, Simapatanapong T. Comparison of open and laparoscopic secure placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Endosc 2005;19:137–9.
13Wright MJ, Bel'eed 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.
14Prabhakar 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.
15Atapour 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;16:463-8.
16Cox 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.
17van 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.
18Bircan HY, Kulah E. Effects of a novel peritoneal dialysis: The open versus laparoscopic preperitoneal tunneling technique. Ther Apher Dial 2016;20:66–72.
19Gadallah 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.
20Tsimoyiannis 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.
21Gajjar 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.
22Crabtree JH, Fishman A. A laparoscopic method for optimal peritoneal dialysis access. Am Surg 2005;71:135–43.
23Draganic 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.
24Eklund 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.
25Sun 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.
26Maio 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.
27Xie 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.
28Hagen S, Lafranca JA, Steyerberg EW, Ijzernams JN, Dor FJ. Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e56531.
29Swartz 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.
30Boujelbane 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.
31Strippoli G, Tong A, Johnson DW, Schena FP, Craig JC. Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;CD004680. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004680.pub2.
32Strippoli 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.
33James A, Booth M, Gani JS. Original article comparative experience of a simple technique for laparoscopic chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter placement. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:735–9.