Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different outcomes of peritoneal catheter percutaneous placement by nephrologists using a trocar versus the Seldinger technique: the experience of two Brazilian centers

  • Nephrology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A good catheter implantation technique is important to allow effective peritoneal access function and long-term technique survival. Studies regarding results obtained by nephrologists in comparison with different techniques have been limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of early catheter-related complications and catheter survival in two Brazilian centers, according to two different percutaneous methods of catheter implantation performed by nephrologist team. Adult incident patients recruited from January 2006 to July 2013 having undergone first peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter implantation were included in the analysis. Mechanical and infectious early complication rates were defined as time to the first event occurring up to 3 months. Four hundred and forty-five consecutive Tenckhoff catheters were implanted by nephrologist team percutaneously after antibiotic prophylaxis in an operating room: trocar was used in 349 (78.4 %) and Seldinger technique (ST) in 99 (21.6 %). The ST was significantly associated with a lower rate of leak (16.3 vs 3 %, p = 0.03) and outflow failure due to tip catheter migration (22.6 vs 10.1 %, p = 0.04), while early infectious complication rates were similar between the two groups (p = 0.59). Long-term catheter survival was higher in Seldinger group (log-rank, p = 0.031). By Cox multivariate analysis, adjusted for age, sex, and diabetes, the ST remained independently associated with better catheter survival [HR 0.681 (0.462–0.910), p = 0.04]. As conclusion, our experience showed better PD outcomes with the ST than trocar method of catheter implantation by nephrologist.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yip T, Lui SL, Lo WR (2013) The choice of peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation technique by nephrologists. Int J of Nephrol 2013. Art ID 940106

  2. Moraes TP, Campos RP, Alcântara MR, Chula D, Vieira MA, Riella MR et al (2012) Similar outcomes of catheters implanted by nephrologists and surgeons: analysis of the Brazilian peritoneal dialysis multicentric study. Semin Dial 25(5):565–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brum S, Rodrigues A, Rocha S, Carvalho MJ, Nogueira C, Magalhães C et al (2010) Moncrief–Popovich technique is an advantageous method of peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25:3070–3075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Crabtree JH (2010) Who should place peritoneal dialysis catheters? Perit Dial Int 30:142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Asif A, Byers P, Gadalean F, Roth D (2003) Peritoneal dialysis underutilization: the impact of an interventional nephrology peritoneal dialysis access program. Semin Dial 16:266–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lo WR, Lui SL, Li FK, Choy BY, Lam MF, Tse KC et al (2003) A prospective randomized study on three different peritoneal dialysis catheters. Perit Dial Int 23(Suppl 2):127–131

    Google Scholar 

  7. Asif A, Pflederer TA, Vieira CF, Diego J, Roth D, Agarwal A (2005) Does catheter insertion by nephrologists improve peritoneal dialysis utilization? A multicenter analysis. Semin Dial 18(2):157–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gadallah MF, Ramdeen G, Torres-Rivera C, Ibrahim ME, Myrick S, Andrew G et al (2001) Changing the trend: a prospective study on factors contributing to the growth rate of peritoneal dialysis programs. Adv Perit Dial 17:122–126

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Varughese S, Tamilarasi V, Jacob CK, John GT (2010) Jejunal mesenteric artery laceration following blind peritoneal catheter insertion using the trocar method. Perit Dial Int 30(5):573–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Valles M, Cantarell C, Vila J, Tovar JL (1982) Delayed perforation of the colon by a Tenckhoff catheter. Perit Dial Bull 2(4):190

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sanderson MC, Swartzendruber DJ, Fenoglio ME, Moore JT, Haun WE (1990) Surgical complications of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Am J Surg 160(6):561–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Henderson S, Brown E, Levy J (2009) Safety and efficacy of percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters under sedation and local anaesthetic. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24(11):3499–3504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Banli O, Altun H, Oztemel A (2005) Early start of CAPD with the Seldinger technique. Perit Dial Int 25(6):556–559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Medani S, Shantier M, Hussein W, Wall C, Mellotte G (2012) A comparative analysis of percutaneous and open surgical techniques for peritoneal catheter placement. Perit Dial Int 32(6):628–635

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ozener C, Bihorac A, Akoglu E (2001) Technical survival of CAPD catheters: comparison between percutaneous and conventional surgical placement techniques. Nephrol Dial Transplant 16(9):1893–1899

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Peppelenbosch A, Van Kuijk HWM, Bouvy ND, Van der Sande FM, Tordoir JHM (2008) Peritoneal dialysis catheter placement technique and complications. NDT Plus 1(Suppl 4):23–28

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dombros NV, Liakopoulos V (2009) Peritoneal dialysis connectology. In: Khanna R, Krediet RT (eds) Nolph, Gokal’s textbook of peritoneal dialysis, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, pp 267–301

  18. Figueiredo A, Goh BL, Jenkins S, Johnson DW, Mactier R, Ramalakshmi S et al (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for peritoneal access. Perit Dial Int 30(4):424–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li PK, Szeto CC, Piraino B, Bernardini J, Figueiredo AE, Gupta A et al (2010) Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommendations: 2010 update. Perit Dial Int 30(4):393–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goh BL, Ganeshadeva YM, Chew SE, Dalimi MS (2008) Does peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion by interventional nephrologists enhance peritoneal dialysis penetration? Semin Dial 21:561–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Crabtree JH (2010) Who should place peritoneal dialysis catheters? Perit Dial Int 30(2):142–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perakis KE, Stylianou KG, Kyriazis JP, Mavroeidi VN, Katsipi IG, Vardaki EA et al (2009) Long-term complication rates and survival of peritoneal dialysis catheters: the role of percutaneous versus surgical placement. Semin Dial 22(5):569–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taro Y, Yoshimoto A, Kawakita M, Ueta H, Toda N, Utsunomiya N et al (2012) Impact of the inclusion of a nephrologist on the surgical team for peritoneal catheter insertion. Perit Dial Int 32(3):346–348

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zaman F (2008) Peritoneal dialysis catheter placement by nephrologist. Perit Dial Int 28:138–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Asif A (2004) Peritoneal dialysis access–related procedures by nephrologists. Semin Dial 17:398–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yip T, Lo WK (2010) Should the “trocar and cannula” method be used for peritoneal catheter implantation? Perit Dial Int 30(5):506–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Allon M, Soucie JM, Macon EJ (1988) Complications with permanent peritoneal dialysis catheters: experience with 154 percutaneously placed catheters. Nephron 48(1):8–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Plaza MM, Cuina L, Goyanes GR, Sobrado JA, Gonzalez L (1999) Mechanical complications in chronic peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nephrol 52(2):124–130

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roueff S, Pagniez D, Moranne O, Roumilhac D, Talaszka A, Le Monies de Sagazan H et al (2002) Simplified percutaneous placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters: comparison with surgical placement. Perit Dial Int 22(2):267–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dombros N, Dratwa M, Feriani M, Gokal R, Heimbürger O, Krediet R et al (2005) European best practice guidelines for peritoneal dialysis. Peritoneal access. Nephro Dial Transplant 20(Suppl 9):812

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moreiras M, Cui˜na L, Goyanes GR, Sobrado JA, Gil P (1997) Inadvertent placement of a Tenckhoff catheter into the urinary bladder. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12(4):818–820

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ponce D, Berbel MN, Almeida CTP, Goes CR, Balbi AL (2012) High volume peritoneal dialysis in acute kidney injury: indications and limitations. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7:887–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gabriel DP, Fernandez-Cean J, Balbi AL (2007) Utilization of peritoneal dialysis in the acute setting. Perit Dial Int 27:328–331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Danielson 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 22:211–219

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wu CC, Su PF, Chiang SS (2007) A prospective study to compare subcutaneously buried peritoneal dialysis catheter technique with conventional technique. Blood Purif 25:229–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Li PK, Szeto CC (2008) Success of the peritoneal dialysis programme in Hong Kong. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23(5):1475–1478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University São Paulo State-UNESP, Distrito de Rubiao Junior, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Daniela Ponce, Vanessa B. Banin, Tricya Nunes Bueloni, Pasqual Barretti, Jacqueline Caramori & André Luís Balbi

Authors
  1. Daniela Ponce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa B. Banin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tricya Nunes Bueloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pasqual Barretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jacqueline Caramori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. André Luís Balbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Ponce.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ponce, D., Banin, V.B., Bueloni, T.N. et al. Different outcomes of peritoneal catheter percutaneous placement by nephrologists using a trocar versus the Seldinger technique: the experience of two Brazilian centers. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 2029–2034 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0738-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-014-0738-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation