Efficacy comparison between pull and surgical technique for removal of peritoneal dialysis catheter

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2021.12.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To compare the effecacy of pull and surgical technique for removal of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 88 patients undergone PD catheter removal admitted to Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University during the past decade (2011-2020). intra-operative and post-operative were performed on the two groups which comprised 39 (pull technique) and 49 (surgical technique) patients. The tension test of the catheter in pull technique group was conducted to explore resistance of PD catheter. Results In comparative trials, operating duration, pain score and proportion of patients with blood loss than 10 ml of pull technique patients were less than those of surgical technique patients (P<0.05); Similar infection rate was found between groups; decreased fracture (pull) in PD catheter was in opposite to its life extension. Conclusion Pull technique for PD catheter is convenient and safe then worthy of promotion.

Key words: peritoneal dialysis, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications

CLC Number:

R459.5

Cheng Huidong, Si Bolin, Hua Qin, He Jianqiang, Gui Lanlan. Efficacy comparison between pull and surgical technique for removal of peritoneal dialysis catheter[J]. Clinical Focus, 2021, 36(12): 1097-1101.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://lchc.magtechjournal.com/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2021.12.008

https://lchc.magtechjournal.com/EN/Y2021/V36/I12/1097

Figures/Tables 8

References 19

[1]	Andreoli MCC, Totoli C. Peritoneal dialysis[J]. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992), 2020, 66(Suppl 1):37-44.
[2]	Lanot A, Bechade C, Verger C, et al. Patterns of peritoneal dialysis catheter practices and technique failure in peritonealdialysis: A nationwide cohort study[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(6):e0218677.
[3]	Htay H, Johnson DW, Craig JC, et al. Catheter type, placement and insertion techniques for preventing catheter-related infections in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, 5(5):CD004680.
[4]	唐丽婷, 杨定平. 腹膜透析相关并发症及防治研究进展[J]. 疑难病杂志, 2021, 20(12):1292-1296.
[5]	Kasuga H. After peritoneal dialysis discontinuation: When will we remove peritoneal dialysis catheter?[J]. J Vasc Access, 2019, 20(1_suppl):31-34.
[6]	Yuksel Y, Tekin S, Yuksel D, et al. Optimal timing for removal of the double-J stent after kidney transplantation[J]. Transplant Proc, 2017, 49(3):523-527. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2017.01.008 URL
[7]	Hakim NS, Pirenne J, Benedetti E, et al. A technique of removal of the tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 1995, 180(3):350-352.
[8]	Quiroga IM, Baboo R, Lord RH, et al. Tenckhoff catheters post-renal transplantation: The ‘pull’ technique?[J]. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2001, 16(10):2079-2081. doi: 10.1093/ndt/16.10.2079 URL
[9]	Grieff M, Mamo E, Scroggins G, et al. The ‘pull’ technique for removal of peritoneal dialysis catheters: A call for reevalution of practice standards[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2017, 37(2):225-229. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2016.00152 URL
[10]	Nakamura H, Anayama M, MakinoY, et al. Unintentional removal of a peritoneal dialysis catheter: A case report[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2016, 36(3):353-354. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2016.00016 URL
[11]	Crabtree JH, Shrestha BM, Chow KM, et al. Creating and maintaining optimal peritoneal dialysis access in the adult patient: 2019 update[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2019, 39(5):414-436. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2018.00232 URL
[12]	Nameirakpam S, Naorem SS, Naorem S. A simple sustained traction method for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) catheter removal[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2016, 10(11): PL01.
[13]	赵丽娟, 柏明, 何丽洁, 等. 腹膜透析相关性腹膜炎致病菌谱及危险因素分析[J]. 疑难病杂志, 2019, 18(11):1108-1112.
[14]	Kahveci A, Ari E, Asicioglu E, et al. Peritoneal dialysis catheter removal by nephrologists: Technical aspect from a single center[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2010, 30(5):570-572. doi: 10.3747/pdi.2009.00220 URL
[15]	Elkabir JJ, Riaz AA, Agarwal SK, et al. Delayed complications following Tenckhoff catheter removal[J]. Nephrol Dial Transplant, 1999, 14(6):1550-1552. doi: 10.1093/ndt/14.6.1550 URL
[16]	Harvey R, Marsh J, Chemla ES. The sequelae of chronic infection related to retained cuffs of a Tenckhoff catheter[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2007, 27(2):217-218. doi: 10.1177/089686080702700226 URL
[17]	Wang J, Li XS, Zhang FX, et al. Minimally invasive ‘pull technique’ for peritoneal dialysis catheter removal[J]. Perit Dial Int, 2021, 41(1):118-121. doi: 10.1177/0896860820915022 URL
[18]	Zhang S, Zhang X, Li H, et al. Three cases of retained cuff related infection after manual pull removal of peritoneal dialysis catheter[J]. Ren Fail, 2021, 43(1):58-61. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2020.1858872 URL
[19]	成水芹, 陈赟敏, 周婷婷, 等. 体外徒手腹膜透析导管拔除术的临床应用[J]. 肾脏病与透析肾移植杂志, 2020, 29(6):531-535.

项目	外科手术切开组(n=49)	徒手薅除术组(n=39)	统计值	P值
年龄(岁)	49.59±13.08	52.38±12.78	t=1.005	0.318
性别[例(%)]
男女	30(61.2) 19(38.8)	26(66.7) 13(33.3)	χ²=0.278	0.598
PD导管放置时间(月)	47.63±22.47	61.74±32.24	t=2.321	0.023
BMI(kg/m²)	21(20, 24)	21(20, 23)	Z=-0.897	0.370
白细胞(×10⁹/L)	6.6(5.2,8.5)	6.7 (5.7,7.7)	Z=-0.307	0.759
血红蛋白(g/L)	100.29±22.78	93.36±19.89	t=-1.497	0.138
血小板(×10⁹/L)	181.49±68.93	197.23±70.77	t=1.052	0.296
血清白蛋白(g/L)	34.96±7.84	32.49±7.57	t=-1.493	0.139
拔管原因[例(%)]
腹膜炎	18(36.7)	12(30.8)	χ²=0.34	0.558
肾移植	2(4.1)	2(5.1)	χ²=0.055	0.815
透析不充分	29(59.2)	25(64.1)	χ²=0.222	0.638

项目	外科手术切开组(n=49)	徒手薅除术组(n=39)	统计值	P值
年龄(岁)	49.59±13.08	52.38±12.78	t=1.005	0.318
性别[例(%)]
男女	30(61.2) 19(38.8)	26(66.7) 13(33.3)	χ²=0.278	0.598
PD导管放置时间(月)	47.63±22.47	61.74±32.24	t=2.321	0.023
BMI(kg/m²)	21(20, 24)	21(20, 23)	Z=-0.897	0.370
白细胞(×10⁹/L)	6.6(5.2,8.5)	6.7 (5.7,7.7)	Z=-0.307	0.759
血红蛋白(g/L)	100.29±22.78	93.36±19.89	t=-1.497	0.138
血小板(×10⁹/L)	181.49±68.93	197.23±70.77	t=1.052	0.296
血清白蛋白(g/L)	34.96±7.84	32.49±7.57	t=-1.493	0.139
拔管原因[例(%)]
腹膜炎	18(36.7)	12(30.8)	χ²=0.34	0.558
肾移植	2(4.1)	2(5.1)	χ²=0.055	0.815
透析不充分	29(59.2)	25(64.1)	χ²=0.222	0.638

项目	外科手术切开组(n=49)	徒手薅除术组(n=39)	统计值	P值
拔管时间(min)	33.82±7.19	15.28±4.45	t=14.82	0.000
NRS评分(分)	4.86±1.04	2.03±0.74	t=14.87	0.000
术中出血量[例(%)]
<5 ml	2(4.1)	12(30.8)	χ²=9.650	0.002
5~10 ml	31(63.3)	26(66.7)	χ²=0.110	0.740
>10 ml	16(32.7)	1(2.5)	χ²=12.61	0.000
术后感染[例(%)]
PD导管出口处感染	0	0
深涤纶套处感染	0	2(5.1)	χ²=1.300	0.437
手术切口感染	2(4.1)	0	χ²=1.630	0.501
PD导管隧道感染	0	0
肾移植术后感染	0	0
腹膜炎术后感染	0	0
新发腹膜炎	0	0
腹部疝[例(%)]	0	0
导管断裂[例(%)]	0	1(2.6)	χ²=1.270	0.443
拔管成功[例(%)]	49(100.0)	38(97.4)	χ²=1.270	0.443

项目	外科手术切开组(n=49)	徒手薅除术组(n=39)	统计值	P值
拔管时间(min)	33.82±7.19	15.28±4.45	t=14.82	0.000
NRS评分(分)	4.86±1.04	2.03±0.74	t=14.87	0.000
术中出血量[例(%)]
<5 ml	2(4.1)	12(30.8)	χ²=9.650	0.002
5~10 ml	31(63.3)	26(66.7)	χ²=0.110	0.740
>10 ml	16(32.7)	1(2.5)	χ²=12.61	0.000
术后感染[例(%)]
PD导管出口处感染	0	0
深涤纶套处感染	0	2(5.1)	χ²=1.300	0.437
手术切口感染	2(4.1)	0	χ²=1.630	0.501
PD导管隧道感染	0	0
肾移植术后感染	0	0
腹膜炎术后感染	0	0
新发腹膜炎	0	0
腹部疝[例(%)]	0	0
导管断裂[例(%)]	0	1(2.6)	χ²=1.270	0.443
拔管成功[例(%)]	49(100.0)	38(97.4)	χ²=1.270	0.443

	直管+鹅颈管直部 (n=38)	鹅颈管鹅颈部(n=5)	t值	P值
0~3年	121.27±1.55(11)	117.70±2.02(3)	3.25	0.031
4~6年	116.66±3.30(17)^*	98.40±2.42(2)^*	10.23	0.001
7~9年	108.83±2.52(9)^*#	-	-	-
≥10年	105.21(1)^*	-	-	-