ArticleCureus2025
Outcomes of Surgical Versus Percutaneous Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion Techniques: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.