Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complications and long-term outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Systematic Reviews
  • Published:
Journal of Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal type of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC). We compared the outcomes of PDCs according to the number of cuffs, intercuff and intraperitoneal segment shape, and presence of a weighted tip.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases (end-of-search date: October 16th, 2019). We included studies comparing double-cuff vs. single-cuff, swan-neck vs. straight-neck, coiled-tip vs. straight-tip, and weighted vs. non-weighted PDCs for the outcomes of interest. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool.

Results

In total, 38 studies were identified, of which 20 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 18 were observational studies. No statistically significant differences were detected between double-cuff vs. single-cuff, swan-neck vs. straight-neck, and coiled-tip vs. straight tip PDCs in any of the outcomes of interest. Weighted catheters were associated with significantly lower rates of tunnel infection (relative risk [RR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31–0.95, p = 0.03), migration (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.16, p < 0.001), drainage failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.96, p = 0.03), cuff extrusion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21–0.74, p < 0.001), and complication-related removal (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44–0.64, p < 0.001).

Discussion

Among the different types of PDCs, weighted catheters result in lower complication rates and superior long-term outcomes compared to non-weighted catheters. Other aspects of the catheter design do not significantly affect PDC outcomes.

Protocol registration

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020158177.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material (data transparency)

The data are available upon request.

Code availability (software application or custom code)

Not applicable.

References

  1. Collins AJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Chen S-C (2015) United States Renal Data System public health surveillance of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int Suppl 5:2–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/kisup.2015.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Maiorca R, Vonesh EF, Cavalli P et al (1991) A multicenter, selection-adjusted comparison of patient and technique survivals on CAPD and hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 11:118–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M et al (1997) Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis Off J Natl Kidney Found 30:334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6386(97)90276-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hagen SM, Lafranca JA, IJzermans JNM, Dor FJMF (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complication rate and catheter survival. Kidney Int 85:920–932. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2013.365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallieni M, Giordano A, Pinerolo C, Cariati M (2015) Type of peritoneal dialysis catheter and outcomes. J Vasc Access 16(Suppl 9):S68-72. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Paolo N, Capotondo L, Sansoni E et al (2004) The self-locating catheter: clinical experience and follow-up. Perit Dial Int 24:359–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/089686080402400411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Negoi D, Prowant BF, Twardowski ZJ (2006) Current trends in the use of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Adv Perit Dial Conf Perit Dial 22:147–152

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kolesnyk I, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT (2010) Time-dependent reasons for peritoneal dialysis technique failure and mortality. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 30:170–177. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2008.00277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. (1996) Adequacy of dialysis and nutrition in continuous peritoneal dialysis: association with clinical outcomes. Canada-USA (CANUSA) Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 7:198–207

  10. Digenis GE, Abraham G, Savin E et al (1990) Peritonitis-related deaths in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 10:45–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moreiras Plaza M, Cuíña L, Goyanes GR et al (1999) Mechanical complications in chronic peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nephrol 52:124–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Flayou K, Ouzeddoun N, Bayahia R et al (2016) Mechanical complications of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: experience at the Ibn Sina University Hospital. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant Off Publ Saudi Cent Organ Transplant Saudi Arab 27:107–110. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.174089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Twardowski ZJ, Prowant BF, Nichols WK et al (1998) Six-year experience with Swan neck presternal peritoneal dialysis catheter. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 18:598–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Swartz R, Messana J, Rocher L et al (1990) The curled catheter: dependable device for percutaneous peritoneal access. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 10:231–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Figueiredo A, Goh B-L, Jenkins S et al (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal access. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 30:424–429. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2010.00087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Strippoli GFM, Tong A, Johnson D et al (2004) Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004680.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Htay H, Johnson DW, Craig JC et al (2019) Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD004680. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004680.pub3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xie J, Kiryluk K, Ren H et al (2011) Coiled versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis Off J Natl Kidney Found 58:946–955. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.06.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration|The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2700. Accessed 8 Aug 2020

  20. Wohlin C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, London, England, United Kingdom, pp 1–10

  21. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D et al (2000) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis

  22. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Akyol AM, Porteous C, Brown MW (1990) A comparison of two types of catheters for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 10:63–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Banin VB, Ponce D, Dias DB et al (2019) Influence of the intra-peritoneal segment of the swan neck peritoneal catheter on infectious and mechanical complications and technique survival. Clin Exp Nephrol 23:135–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-018-1618-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chow KM, Wong SSM, Ng JKC et al (2020) Straight versus coiled peritoneal dialysis catheters: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis Off J Natl Kidney Found 75:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.05.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Danielsson A, Blohmé L, Tranaeus A, Hylander B (2002) A prospective randomized study of the effect of a subcutaneously “buried” peritoneal dialysis catheter technique versus standard technique on the incidence of peritonitis and exit-site infection. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 22:211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Eklund BH, Honkanen EO, Kala AR, Kyllönen LE (1994) Catheter configuration and outcome in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a prospective comparison of two catheters. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 14:70–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Eklund BH, Honkanen EO, Kala AR, Kyllonen LE (1995) Peritoneal dialysis access: prospective randomized comparison of the Swan neck and Tenckhoff catheters. Perit Dial Int 15:353–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eklund B, Honkanen E, Kyllönen L et al (1997) Peritoneal dialysis access: prospective randomized comparison of single-cuff and double-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheters. Nephrol Dial Transplant Off Publ Eur Dial Transpl Assoc Eur Ren Assoc 12:2664–2666. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/12.12.2664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnson DW, Wong J, Wiggins KJ et al (2006) A randomized controlled trial of coiled versus straight swan-neck Tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 48:812–821. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Li C-L, Cui T-G, Gan H-B et al (2009) A randomized trial comparing conventional swan-neck straight-tip catheters to straight-tip catheters with an artificial subcutaneous swan neck. Perit Dial Int 29:278–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/089686080902900311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lo W-K, Lui S-L, Li F-K et al (2003) A prospective randomized study on three different peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 23(Suppl 2):S127-131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lye WC, Kour NW, van der Straaten JC et al (1996) A prospective randomized comparison of the swan neck, coiled, and straight Tenckhoff catheters in patients on CAPD. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 16(Suppl 1):S333-335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nielsen PK, Hemmingsen C, Friis SU et al (1995) Comparison of straight and curled Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheters implanted by percutaneous technique: a prospective randomized study. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 15:18–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ouyang C-J, Huang F-X, Yang Q-Q et al (2015) Comparing the incidence of catheter-related complications with straight and coiled tenckhoff catheters in peritoneal dialysis patients-a single-center prospective randomized trial. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 35:443–449. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2013.00016

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin J, Didlake R, Raju S, Hsu H (1990) A prospective randomized evaluation of chronic peritoneal catheters. Insertion site and intraperitoneal segment. ASAIO Trans 36:M497-500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sanchez-Canel JJ, Garcia-Perez H, Garcia-Calvo R et al (2016) Prospective randomized study comparing a single-cuff self-locating catheter with a single-cuff straight Tenckhoff catheter in peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 36:52–59. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2013.00315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Scott PD, Bakran A, Pearson R et al (1994) Peritoneal dialysis access. Prospective randomized trial of 3 different peritoneal catheters–preliminary report. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 14:289–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Stegmayr BG, Wikdahl AM, Bergström M et al (2005) A randomized clinical trial comparing the function of straight and coiled Tenckhoff catheters for peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 25:85–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stegmayr BG, Sperker W, Nilsson CH et al (2015) Few outflow problems with a self-locating catheter for peritoneal dialysis: a randomized trial. Medicine (Baltim) 94:e2083. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yip T, Lui SL, Tse KC et al (2010) A prospective randomized study comparing Tenckhoff catheters inserted using the triple incision method with standard swan neck catheters. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 30:56–62. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2008.00240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cavagna R, Tessarin C, Tarroni G et al (1999) The self-locating catheter: clinical evaluation and comparison with the Tenckhoff catheter. Perit Dial Int 19:540–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/089686089901900608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Diaz-Buxo JA, Geissinger WT (1984) Single cuff versus double cuff Tenckhoff catheter. Perit Dial Int 4:100–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/089686088400402S08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Favazza A, Petri R, Montanaro D et al (1995) Insertion of a straight peritoneal catheter in an arcuate subcutaneous tunnel by a tunneler: long-term experience. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 15:357–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Filiopoulos V, Biblaki D, Takouli L et al (2016) Swan-neck versus straight peritoneal dialysis catheter: long-term effect on patient and method survival. Indian J Nephrol 26:343–346. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-4065.167274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Flanigan MJ, Ngheim DD, Schulak JA et al (1987) The use and complications of three peritoneal dialysis catheter designs. A retrospective analysis. ASAIO Trans 33:33–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gadallah MF, Mignone J, Torres C et al (2000) The role of peritoneal dialysis catheter configuration in preventing catheter tip migration. Adv Perit Dial Conf Perit Dial 16:47–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Hwang TL, Huang CC (1994) Comparison of swan neck catheter with Tenckhoff catheter for CAPD. Adv Perit Dial Conf Perit Dial 10:203–205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kim D, Burke D, Izatt S et al (1984) Single- or double-cuff peritoneal catheters? A prospective comparison. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 30:232–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lanuza M, Minguela JI, Rodado R et al (2006) Our nine-year experience with the self-locating catheter: comparison of malfunction rate with other Tenckhoff catheter variants. Int J Artif Organs 29:138–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139880602900114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lewis MA, Smith T, Postlethwaite RJ, Webb NJ (1997) A comparison of double-cuffed with single-cuffed Tenckhoff catheters in the prevention of infection in pediatric patients. Adv Perit Dial Conf Perit Dial 13:274–276

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Nessim SJ, Bargman JM, Jassal SV (2010) Relationship between double-cuff versus single-cuff peritoneal dialysis catheters and risk of peritonitis. Nephrol Dial Transplant Off Publ Eur Dial Transpl Assoc Eur Ren Assoc 25:2310–2314. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfq002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pacitti A (2006) The catheter as Ariadne’s thread to follow the path of peritoneal dialysis (PD) through the long-term experience of a center. Int J Artif Organs. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139880602900113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Singh S, Prakash J, Singh RG et al (2015) Comparison of conventional straight and swan-neck straight catheters inserted by percutaneous method for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a single-center study. Int Urol Nephrol 47:1735–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-1081-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stonelake S, Baharani J, Thomas M et al (2019) Outcomes of the weighted peritoneal dialysis catheter in patients at risk of percutaneous catheter failure. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 39:142–146. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2017.00233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Warchol S, Ziolkowska H, Roszkowska-Blaim M (2003) Exit-site infection in children on peritoneal dialysis: comparison of two types of peritoneal catheters. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 23:169–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Xie JY, Chen N, Ren H et al (2009) Prospective studies on applications of a two-cuff swan neck catheter and a Tenckhoff catheter to Chinese CAPD patients. Clin Nephrol 72:373–379. https://doi.org/10.5414/cnp72373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Wu C-C, Su P-F, Chiang S-S (2007) A prospective study to compare subcutaneously buried peritoneal dialysis catheter technique with conventional technique. Blood Purif 25:229–232. https://doi.org/10.1159/000101027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Liu WJ, Hooi LS (2010) Complications after Tenckhoff catheter insertion: a single-centre experience using multiple operators over four years. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 30:509–512. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2009.00083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tiong HY, Poh J, Sunderaraj K et al (2006) Surgical complications of Tenckhoff catheters used in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Singap Med J 47:707–711

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Briggs VR, Shrestha BM, Wilkie ME (2014) Respecting shape memory to optimize peritoneal dialysis catheter outcomes. Kidney Int 86:880–882. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2014.238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Paolo N, Petrini G, Garosi G et al (1995) A new self-locating peritoneal catheter. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial 16:623–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/089686089601600613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kathuria P, Twardowski ZJ, Nichols WK (2009) Peritoneal dialysis access and exit-site care including surgical aspects. In: Khanna R, Krediet RT (eds) Nolph and Gokal’s textbook of peritoneal dialysis. Springer US, Boston, pp 371–446

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Crabtree JH, Shrestha BM, Chow K-M et al (2019) Creating and maintaining optimal peritoneal dialysis access in the adult patient: 2019 update. Perit Dial Int 39:414–436. https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2018.00232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Russo R, Manili L, Tiraboschi G et al (2006) Patient re-training in peritoneal dialysis: why and when it is needed. Kidney Int Suppl. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5001929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Di Paolo N, Sansoni E, Cappelletti F et al (2006) The self-locating catheter: review and cost analysis. Int J Artif Organs 29:113–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139880602900111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Esagian SM, Sideris GA, Bishawi M et al (2020) Surgical versus percutaneous catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-020-00896-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Elbokl M, Momciu B, Kishibe T et al (2020) Peritoneal dialysis access outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Perit Dial Int J Int Soc Perit Dial. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896860820966898

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare no funding source.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Stepan M. Esagian and Dimitrios Spinos contributed equally to this manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece

    Stepan Michran Esagian, Dimitrios Spinos, Anastasia Vasilopoulou, Nikolaos Syrigos & Konstantinos P. Economopoulos

  2. Derby Royal Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Derby, UK

    Dimitrios Spinos

  3. Department of General Surgery, Veterans Administration Hospital (NIMTS), Athens, Greece

    Anastasia Vasilopoulou

  4. Department of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Nikolaos Syrigos

  5. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Rd, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Muath Bishawi, Theodore Nick Pappas & Konstantinos P. Economopoulos

  6. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Ruediger Wilhelm Lehrich & John Paul Middleton

  7. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Paul Vincent Suhocki

Authors
  1. Stepan Michran Esagian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Spinos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasia Vasilopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolaos Syrigos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Muath Bishawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruediger Wilhelm Lehrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Paul Middleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul Vincent Suhocki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Theodore Nick Pappas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Konstantinos P. Economopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos P. Economopoulos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest/Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Since this study only used published data, no Institutional Review Board approval was necessary.

Consent to participate

Since this study only used published data, no patient written consent was necessary.

Consent for publication

Since this study only used published data, no consent for publication was necessary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1 (DOCX 22 KB)

Online Resource 2 (DOCX 32 KB)

Online Resource 3 (DOCX 5768 KB)

Online Resource 4

Sample designs of single-cuff and double-cuff catheters (A), swan-neck catheters (B), coiled-tip catheters (C), and weighted (self-locating) catheters. (PNG 121 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esagian, S.M., Spinos, D., Vasilopoulou, A. et al. Influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complications and long-term outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nephrol 34, 1973–1987 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01016-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01016-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation