Grefberg N, Danielson B G, Nilsson P, Wahlberg J
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1983;17(3):343-6. doi: 10.3109/00365598309182143.
The results obtained by means of the Tenckhoff and the Toronto Western Hospital-type (TWH) indwelling catheters for peritoneal access in patients undergoing Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis are reported. Fifty-nine Tenckhoff catheters were used for 592 months and 24 TWH-type for 220 months. One-year catheter survival was 71% in the Tenckhoff group and 77% in the TWH group. The difference does not reach statistical significance. Moreover no statistically significant differences as regards complications could be found between the two catheter types. A major disadvantage was noted with the TWH catheter: on two occasions TWH catheters could not be removed without a laparotomy, being firmly adherent to the intestine or omentum. It is concluded that the TWH catheter is not a superior alternative to the Tenckhoff catheter for peritoneal access in patients undergoing Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis.
本文报告了在持续非卧床腹膜透析患者中，使用Tenckhoff导管和多伦多西部医院型（TWH）留置导管进行腹膜通路的结果。59根Tenckhoff导管使用了592个月，24根TWH型导管使用了220个月。Tenckhoff组的导管1年生存率为71%，TWH组为77%。差异无统计学意义。此外，两种导管类型在并发症方面未发现统计学显著差异。TWH导管存在一个主要缺点：有两次TWH导管因与肠管或网膜紧密粘连，无法在不开腹的情况下取出。结论是，对于持续非卧床腹膜透析患者的腹膜通路，TWH导管并非Tenckhoff导管的 superior alternative。 （注：“superior alternative”直译为“更好的选择”，这里结合语境灵活处理为“更优替代方案”更合适，但按要求不添加解释，保留原文表述）
