The study of comparing three different cannula operations for peritoneal dialysis / 中华危重病急救医学

ABSTRACT

Objective:To observe the clinical effect of the cannula under laparoscopy, percutaneous puncture cannula, and conventional surgery cannula for peritoneal dialysis.Methods:From May 3, 2015 to February 14, 2020, 87 patients with end-stage renal disease needing peritoneal dialysis in Ningbo Zhenhai People's Hospital were enrolled. These patients were divided into three groups including cannula under laparoscopy (23 cases), percutaneous puncture cannula (29 cases), and conventional surgery cannula (35 cases). The baseline characteristics, perioperative conditions (surgical time, post-surgical hospitalization time), the incidence of recent complications (abdominal hemorrhage, direct abdominal hemorrhage, incision pain, leakage, catheter shift, peritonitis), and long-term complications (catheter shift, peritonitis, hernia, thoracic and abdominal fistula, abdominal tube obstruction) among the three groups were compared.Results:Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula, the operation time in the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula were significantly shorter (minutes 32.5±12.3, 28.9±11.8 vs. 61.3±15.4, both P < 0.05), the in-hospital stay in the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula were reduced (days 9.8±3.4, 9.2±2.6 vs. 10.7±3.2), but there was no statistical significance among the three groups ( P > 0.05). The incidence of abdominal bleeding, rectus abdominis bleeding, and incision pain in the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula were significantly lower than those in the group of conventional surgery cannula [incidence of abdominal bleeding 4.3% (1/23), 3.4% (1/29) vs. 22.9% (8/35), incidence of rectus abdominis bleeding 4.3% (1/23), 3.4% (1/29) vs. 22.9% (8/35), incidence of incision pain 8.7% (2/23), 10.3% (3/29) vs. 42.9% (15/35), all P < 0.01]. The difference between the group of cannula under laparoscopy and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula had no statistical significance. Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula, the incidence of catheter displacement in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly reduced [4.3% (1/23) vs. 27.6% (8/29), 31.4% (11/35), both P < 0.05]. Compared with the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula, the incidence of catheter displacement in long-term complications in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly reduced [4.3% (1/23) vs. 24.1% (7/29), 31.4% (11/35), both P < 0.05], however, the difference of that between the group of conventional surgery cannula and the group of percutaneous puncture cannula was not statistically significant. The incidence of hernia in the group of cannula under laparoscopy was significantly higher than that in the group of percutaneous puncture cannula or in the group of conventional surgery cannula [21.7% (5/23) vs. 3.4% (1/29), 2.8% (1/35), both P < 0.05], and all of that were umbilical hernia, however, the difference of that between the group of percutaneous puncture cannula and the group of conventional surgery cannula was not statistically significant. Conclusion:Compared with the traditional conventional surgical cannula placement methods, percutaneous puncture has the advantages of simple operation, short operation time, small trauma, but still cannot reduce the incidence of drift tube; laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis tube has the advantages of short operation time, small trauma and low catheter displacement rate, but increases the risk of umbilical hernia.