• Lifeng Gong, Wei Xu, Weigang Tang, Jingkui Lu, Yani Li, Huaqin Jiang, and Hui Li.
• Department of Nephrology, Wujin Hospital Affiliated with Jiangsu University.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 25; 99 (48): e23311.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the complications of low-site peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion.MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception to September 6, 2019: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang. Eligible studies comparing low-site PD catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3.ResultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 504 patients were included in the low-site PD catheter placement group, and 325 patients were included in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with traditional open surgery, low-site PD catheter placement had a lower incidence rate of catheter displacement (odds ratios [OR] 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.22, P < .01) and noncatheter displacement dysfunction (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, P < .01). However, there was no difference between the 2 catheter insertion methods concerning bleeding (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23-1.22, P = .13), PD fluid leakage (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.10, P = .07), hypogastralgia (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.80, P = .93), peritonitis (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.54, P = .38), or exit-site and tunnel infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-1.03, P = .06).ConclusionLow-site PD catheter placement reduced the risk of catheter displacement and noncatheter displacement dysfunction and did not increase the risk of bleeding, PD fluid leakage, hypogastralgia, peritonitis, or exit site and tunnel infections. Additional large multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

35 keywords...

hide…