Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter placement

Tiffany C. Cox*, Laurel J. Blair, Ciara R. Huntington, Tanushree Prasad, Kent W. Kercher, B. Todd Heniford, Vedra A. Augenstein

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopy revolutionized many General Surgery procedures by decreasing hospital stay, minimizing recovery time, and reducing wound infection rates. This study evaluates the potential benefits of laparoscopic approach to peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for laparoscopic and open PDC placement. We evaluated patient demographics, comorbidities, operative time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Univariate comparison and multivariate logistic regression analysis (MVA) adjusting for confounding factors including age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, and preoperative conditions were performed. Results: A total of 3134 patients undergoing PDC placement were recorded in the NSQIP database between 2005 and 2012, including 2412 laparoscopic cases (LPDC) (77 %) and 722 open (OPDC). Overall, the majority of cases were performed by General Surgeons (81 %) with most of the remainder completed by Vascular Surgeons (16.8 %). Patients undergoing LPDC versus OPDC demonstrated no significant difference in gender (54 vs. 56 % males, p = 0.4), smoking history (8.5 ± 18.3 vs. 7.2 ± 16.9 pack years, p = 0.06), diabetes (42 vs. 40 %, p = 0.4), COPD (4.6 vs. 5 %, p = 0.63), or preoperative dialysis requirement (72 vs. 73 %, p = 0.6), but they were younger (57.2 ± 14.8 vs. 60.5 ± 15.9 years, p = 0.05) and had a higher BMI (29.3 vs. 29 kg/m2, p = 0.04). In univariate analysis of LPDC versus OPDC, overall wound complications (1.6 vs. 2.9 %, p = 0.02), deep surgical site infections (0.12 vs. 0.83 %, p < 0.006), minor complications (3.8 vs. 6.5 %, p < 0.05), major complications (4.3 vs. 6.9 %, p < 0.05), and LOS (1.8 ± 11.9 vs. 4.4 ± 10 days, p < 0.0001) favored the LPDC approach, but only operative time (57.6 ± 4.6 vs. 71.8 ± 5.3, p < 0.001) remained significant in MVA after controlling for confounding factors. Both LPDC and OPDC had equivalently low rates of catheter failure (0.21 vs. 0.14 %, p = 0.7). Conclusion: Using univariate analysis, there appears to be a benefit from LPDC placement. However, after controlling for confounding variables, the techniques appear to have equal outcomes. Surgeons should perform a LPDC or OPDC according to the approach with which they are most familiar. However, continued adoption, dispersal, and refinement of the laparoscopic approach may further optimize patient outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)899-905
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Dialysis
  • Laparoscopic
  • NSQIP
  • Open
  • Peritoneal dialysis
  • Peritoneal dialysis catheter

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Laparoscopic versus open peritoneal dialysis catheter placement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this