English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background and Aims Successful PD requires timely peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion and management of PDC related complications. Some societies have recently made an effort to increase PD and PDC insertion by nephrologists is an important issue. The aim of the present study was to evaluate comparative analysis of PDC insertion between blind and surgical methods by nephrologists. Method We reviewed medical records at a tertiary medical center in Korea and identified 249 adults who underwent first-time PDC insertion. All PDC insertions were performed using the blind or surgical methods. In our hospital during study period, two of three nephrologists performed the blind method routinely in all of eligible patients (blind group, n = 144). One of three nephrologists performed the surgical method in all of eligible patients (surgical group, n = 105). During follow-up, we collected data regarding peritoneal dialysis peritonitis (PDP), exit site and/or tunnel infection (ESI/TI). Catheter survivor was defined as maintaining of PD at July 2019 or PDC removal by PDC unrelated problems such as patient death due to PDC unrelated factors, kidney transplantation, patient demand, inadequate PD, improved renal function, poor oral intake due to abdominal distension, and colon cancer. Catheter non-survivor and/or PDC associated removal was defined as PDC removal by PDC related problems such as PDP, ESI/TI or PDC malfunction. Intervention-free non-survivor was defined as PDC revision, removal, or exchange by PDC related problems. Results Mean age at the PDC insertion in blind and surgical groups were 57.5 ± 13.7 and 56.3 ± 12.9 years, respectively (P = 0.640). There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, underlying disease of ESRD, and Davies comorbidity index between the 2 groups. Mean follow-up durations were 37.0 ± 26.3 and 32.6 ± 23.4 months in the blind and surgical groups, respectively (P = 0.172). Total numbers of patients with one or more PDP events during follow-up period were 72 (50.0%) and 42 (40.0%) in blind and surgical groups (P = 0.118). Total numbers of PDP episodes were 157 and 100, respectively. Total numbers of patients with one or more ESI/TI events during follow-up period were 14 (9.7%) and 7 (6.7%) in blind and surgical groups (P = 0.392). Total numbers of ESI/TI episodes were 27 and 8, respectively. The 5-year PDC survival rates were 87.0% and 91.1% in the blind and surgical groups, respectively (P = 0.995, Figure 1). The 5-year intervention-free survival rates were 79.6% and 77.0% in the blind and surgical groups, respectively (P = 0.723). The leading cause of PDC removal was patient death. There was no significant difference in the distributions of cause of PDC removal in the 2 groups (P = 0.335). PDC associated removal rates in blind and surgical groups were 14 (18.4%) and 9 (16.4%), respectively (P = 0.760). Conclusion Our study shows that catheter outcomes including infectious and mechanical complications and catheter survival are similar between blind and surgical insertion techniques by nephrologists.

P1220COMPARISON OF PERITONEAL DIALYSIS CATHETER INSERTION TECHNIQUES BY NEPHROLOGISTS: SURGICAL METHOD VS BLIND METHOD USING A TROCAR