Comparison of outcomes of peritoneal dialysis catheters placed by the fluoroscopically guided percutaneous method versus directly visualized surgical method.

PURPOSE

To compare complications in catheters placed by the fluoroscopically guided percutaneous method versus directly visualized surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed. Mechanical complication rate data, including catheter leakage, malfunction, malposition, and bleeding, were compared between the two groups over a 1-year follow-up period. Additionally, exit site infection rates, tunnel infection rates, and peritonitis episodes were evaluated based on the incidence within 30 days of insertion and 30 days to 1 year after insertion.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were analyzed (52 in the fluoroscopic guidance group, 49 in the direct visualization group). Prevalence of diabetes was similar: 56% in the directly visualized surgery group and 47% in the fluoroscopically guided treatment group (P = .37). Although the difference was not significant, complication rates tended to be higher in the directly visualized surgery group compared with the percutaneous placement group. These included catheter leakage (13% vs 4%; P = .093), malfunction (11% vs 9%; P = .73), malposition (13% vs 6%; P = .20), and bleeding (8% vs 2%; P = .21). There were no differences in early and late exit site infections and tunnel infections. Late peritonitis rates were lower in the percutaneous placement group (20%) than in the direct visualization group (42%) (P = .018). Diabetic patients had approximately six times greater risk of catheter malfunction than nondiabetic patients regardless of method of catheter insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters percutaneously with fluoroscopic guidance is as safe as placement with direct visualization techniques.