Cureus. 2025 Apr 28;17(4):e83113. doi: 10.7759/cureus.83113. eCollection 2025 Apr.
ABSTRACT
Background Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is a feasible and practical option for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, the superiority of the surgical method versus the percutaneous method for peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement is not well established. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 91 peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters inserted using two methods: the minilaparotomy technique performed by a surgeon (Group S, n=57) and the percutaneous technique performed by a nephrologist (Group N, n=34) over a 36-month study period. Results The primary PDC nonfunction rate was comparable between the two groups (3.5% vs. 3.3%). Catheter survival at one year (78.9% vs. 80%, p=0.761) and at the end of the study (61.4% vs. 66.6%, p=0.947) was higher in Group N but not statistically significant. The mean duration of catheter survival (in months) was identical in both groups (19.62±10.42 vs. 19.62±10.42), and patient survival at the end of the study was also comparable (78.9% vs. 80%, p=0.852). Peritonitis rates (per patient-year) did not differ significantly between the groups (0.15 vs. 0.10, p=0.693). Mechanical complication rates and refractory peritonitis rates were also comparable between the two groups. Conclusion The outcomes of percutaneously placed PDCs performed by a well-trained nephrologist were comparable to those placed by surgeons using the minilaparotomy technique. Training more nephrologists in percutaneous PDC insertion could enhance patient access and convenience in care.
PMID:40438804 | PMC:PMC12117519 | DOI:10.7759/cureus.83113
