Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Open versus Laparoscopic Placement of a Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter and Outcomes: The Capd I Trial. Issue 2 (March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Laanen, Jorinde H.H.; Cornelis, Tom; Mees, Barend M.; Litjens, Elisabeth J.; van Loon, Magda M.; Tordoir, Jan H.M.; Peppelenbosch, Arnoud G.
• Is Part Of: Peritoneal dialysis international. Volume 38:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 104
• Page End: 112
• Publication Date: 2018-03
• Subjects: RCT -- CAPD -- peritoneal dialysis -- operation -- laparoscopic -- open surgery -- CAPD I trial; Peritoneal dialysis -- Periodicals; Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis -- Periodicals; 617.461059
• DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2017.00023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0896-8608

Abstract

Objective: To determine the best operation technique, open versus laparoscopic, for insertion of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter with regard to clinical success. Clinical success was defined as an adequate function of the catheter 2 – 4 weeks after insertion. Methods: All patients with end-stage renal disease who were suitable for PD and gave informed consent were randomized for either open surgery or laparoscopic surgery. A previous laparotomy was not considered an exclusion criterion. Laparoscopic placement had the advantage of pre-peritoneal tunneling, the possibility for adhesiolysis, and placement of the catheter under direct vision. Catheter fixation techniques, omentopexy, or other adjunct procedures were not performed. Other measured parameters were in-hospital morbidity and mortality and post-operative infections. Results: Between 2010 and 2016, 95 patients were randomized to this study protocol. After exclusion of 5 patients for various reasons, 44 patients received an open procedure and 46 patients a laparoscopic procedure. Gender, age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, current hemodialysis, severe heart failure, and previous an abdominal operation were not significantly different between the groups. However, in the open surgery group, fewer patients had a previous median laparotomy compared with the laparoscopic group (6 vs 16 patients; p = 0.027). There was no statistically significant difference in mean operation time (36 ± 24 vs 38 ± 15 minutes) and hospital stay (2.1 ± 2.7 vs 3.1 ± 7.3 days) between the groups. In the open surgery group 77% of the patients had an adequate functioning catheter 2 – 4 weeks after insertion compared with 70% of patients in the laparoscopic group ( p = not significant [NS]). In the open surgery group there was 1 post- operative death (2%) compared with none in the laparoscopic group ( p = NS). The morbidity in both groups was low and not significantly different. In the open surgery group, 2 patients had an exit-site infection and 1 patient had a paramedian wound infection. In the laparoscopic group, 1 patient had a transient cardiac event, 1 patient had intraabdominal bleeding requiring reoperation, and 1 patient had fluid leakage that could be managed conservatively. The survival curve demonstrated a good long-term function of PD. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing open vs laparoscopic placement of PD catheters demonstrates equal clinical success rates between the 2 techniques. Advanced laparoscopic techniques such as catheter fixation techniques and omentopexy might further improve clinical outcome.