Laparoscopic vs open surgical insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters: A propensity score-matched cohort study

Abstract

BackgroudThe optimal peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheterization method remains under debated. To minimize catheter-related complications, we developed a novel modified low-position two-port laparoscopic technique, and evaluated the efficacy and safety of traditional open and advanced laparoscopic techniques. MethodsA total of 743 patients with uremia who underwent PD catheterization were retrospectively reviewed. For the placement of PD catheters, patients underwent low-position two-port laparoscopic surgery (Lap group) or traditional open surgery (open group). To minimize confounding bias, we performed a 1-to-2 propensity-score matching adjusted for the most clinically relevant potential confounders. The baseline characteristics, perioperative conditions, complications and outcomes were compared between the two groups. ResultsAfter propensity-score matching, a well-balanced cohort comprising 148 matched pairs were identified. In the matched analysis, patients in the Lap group showed significantly shorter operative time (43.0 ± 16.6 versus 81.6 ± 19.8 minutes, P < 0.001) and lower postoperative pain score within 24 hours (0.24 ± 0.62 versus 1.00 ± 1.41, P = 0.002). The incidence of catheter migration in the Lap group was significantly lower than those in the open group (0.7% versus 6.5%, P = 0.006), while other complications, such as catheter occlusion, omentum wrapping, dialysate leakage, bloody effluent, organ injury, hernia, hydrothorax, early tunnel infection and peritonitis, showed no difference (P > 0.05). The Lap group patients had a favorable catheter survival rate compared with group B (log rank, P = 0.032). ConclusionsOur low-position two-port laparoscopic technique is a safe, simple, and fast method that can minimize patient discomfort without additional cost and offers better catheter survival with minimal risk of migration.