Background: The ideal method for catheter placement in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis remains debatable. This prospective study intends to clarify whether laparoscopic assisted percutaneous puncture is superior to open surgery.
Materials and methods: From 2002 to 2006, 77 patients receiving first catheter placement were enrolled and randomized to either an open group of 40 patients or a laparoscopic group of 37 patients. Patient characteristics, operation-related data, procedural complications, and clinical outcome were compared by using the statistical software SPSS ver. 11.5 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).
Results: Laparoscopy had a longer operative time (68.32+/-31.90 versus 46.68+/-15.99 min; P<0.001), shorter wound length (1.69+/-0.46 versus 2.34+/-0.84 cm; P<0.001), and higher costs (P<0.001) compared with open surgery. Laparoscopy tended to have a higher incidence of pericannular bleeding (21.6% versus 7.5%) and a lower rate of early catheter migration (2.7% versus 15.0%), but its early/late/overall complication rate did not statistically differ. No surgical mortality occurred. Rate and cause of overall mortality or catheter dropout did not statistically differ. Catheter longevity was equivalent in both groups.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic assisted percutaneous puncture exhibited no superiority to open surgery. As a matter of fact, open surgery's shorter operative time and reduced equipment requirement can increase cost-effectiveness. Therefore, conventional open surgery is recommended for most patients with primary catheter placement.
Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.