Comparison of Peritoneal Catheter Insertion Techniques: A Single-Center Experience Comparing Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Approaches

Background: There is still no consensus on the best approach for the insertion of the peritoneal dialysis catheter. We aimed to compare the results of the percutaneous Sildenger and laparoscopic surgical peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion approaches

Methods: The study examined the files of patients in the chronic PD program retrospectively. Demographic characteristics such as early and late complications, attacks of infection, time of use of the catheter, and number of hospitalizations were recorded to compare both methods. (Tablo 1). The results were evaluated through appropriate statistical analysis of the data.

Results: In our study, 32 (53.3%) out of 60 patients included were males. Patients were divided into two groups, the percutaneous PD catheter group (Group 1, n=36) and the Laparoscopic PD catheter group (Group 2, n = 24). The average age for group 1 was 65 years, while it was 57 years for group 2 (p = 0.197). The median follow-up time of the study population was 17 months (7-41). The average first usage time of the PD catheter was 13.5 (11-16.5) days in group 1 versus 21.5 (18.5-27.5) days (p  0.001) in group 2. The exit site leak was 11.1% (n = 4) versus 33.3% (n = 8) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.039). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization, renal replacement treatment transition, and death.

Conclusion: The percutaneous approach for PD catheter insertion is more advantageous compared to surgical techniques with fewer complications. More importantly, there is no risk of anesthesia, in addition to shorter incisions and less hospitalization time.