See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nephrology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Yan-Hong Tuo
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.
Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.
Keywords
laparoscopic catheter placement, conventional open catheter placement, peritoneal dialysis, complications, meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nephrology.
Version 3
Posted 31 Jan, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 11 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 10 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 18 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Oct, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 23 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 02 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 06 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 11 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nephrology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Yan-Hong Tuo
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nephrology.
Version 3
Posted 31 Jan, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 11 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 10 Jan, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 28 Dec, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 18 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 05 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Oct, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Oct, 2019
Review #3 received
Received 23 Sep, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 22 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 02 Sep, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Sep, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 06 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 06 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 11 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Nephrology.
Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.
Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...