Renal failure · 2024
Comparative analysis of complications and technique survival in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion: single purse-string suture vs. double purses-string suture.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Xiaoling, Chen Xiuling, Gao Hui, Zhou Qin, Liu Wenshu, Li Pengli, Li Yan, Wang Shiwen, Chen Jin, Li Guisen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Single- and double-purse-string suture methods are both widely used in open surgical catheterization for peritoneal dialysis. This study aimed to compare the post-insertion complications and technical survival of the two methods.
METHODS: This retrospective study matched 142 patients who underwent peritoneal catheterization using the single- (Group S) or double- (Group D) purse-string suture method. Baseline clinical data and complications were recorded, and technical and patient survival rates were evaluated over 3 years.
RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of infection complication rates (S, 2.8% vs. D, 5.6%, p = 0.377) or non-infection complication rates (2.1% vs. 2.8%, p = 1.000) within the first month post-insertion. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of technical survival at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96.3%, 90.4%, and 85.9% in group S and 89.9%, 86.7%, and 84.8% in group D, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.439). Additionally, patient survival rates were comparable between groups over the 3-year follow-up (log-rank test, p = 0.647).
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the single- and double-purse-string suture catheter insertion methods have similar post-insertion complication and technical survival rates. These data suggest that the single-purse-string suture method can be adopted as standard practice for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement.
METHODS: This retrospective study matched 142 patients who underwent peritoneal catheterization using the single- (Group S) or double- (Group D) purse-string suture method. Baseline clinical data and complications were recorded, and technical and patient survival rates were evaluated over 3 years.
RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of infection complication rates (S, 2.8% vs. D, 5.6%, p = 0.377) or non-infection complication rates (2.1% vs. 2.8%, p = 1.000) within the first month post-insertion. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of technical survival at 1, 2, and 3 years were 96.3%, 90.4%, and 85.9% in group S and 89.9%, 86.7%, and 84.8% in group D, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.439). Additionally, patient survival rates were comparable between groups over the 3-year follow-up (log-rank test, p = 0.647).
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the single- and double-purse-string suture catheter insertion methods have similar post-insertion complication and technical survival rates. These data suggest that the single-purse-string suture method can be adopted as standard practice for peritoneal dialysis catheter placement.