ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2019
Comparison of the complications of open surgery versus laparoscopic technique in insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheter.
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Catheter insertion techniques for improving catheter function and clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- From "feeling" to "seeing": modification of the percutaneous peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion with an optical puncture system.International urology and nephrology · 2021Article
- Establishment of a prediction model for early and mid-term complications for patients undergoing catheter insertion for peritoneal dialysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvention of peritoneal dialysis (PD) has opened new windows for patients under dialysis due to its fewer time requirement and being ambulatory in comparison to hemodialysis. Open surgery and laparoscopic technique have been utilized for peritoneal catheter embedding; however, data about the superior technique are controversial. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of open surgery versus laparoscopic technique and compare their complications in those with survival of over and less than a year in patients who need PD for the first time. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 121 cases admitted for PD. Patients were randomly divided into two groups undergoing either open or laparoscopic surgery for embedding PD catheter. Patients' demographics, as well as PD function and complications, were followed for a 12-month duration and compared between the two groups.
resultsCatheter survival for over 12 months occurred in 39 patients (65%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 45 (73.8%) patients underwent open surgery (
conclusionConsidering complications, PD catheter implantation through laparoscopic surgery was not statistically different from open surgery, neither for those with less than 12 months of survival nor for those with over a year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.