MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975977743 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.12270

The PD catheter dilemma

2012· article· en· W1975977743 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tom McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheterPeritoneal dialysisSurgeryPerioperativeDialysis catheterPeritonitisDialysisTransplantationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study helps to shed light on a long-standing dilemma in renal transplant surgery: whether to remove the peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter at the time of transplant surgery or to leave it in place until established renal allograft function down the road.1 The potential benefits to removing the PD catheter at the time of surgery are that you eliminate the need for a second procedure, as well as avoid the potential complications fraught with having a PD catheter (e.g., infection, peritonitis) as highlighted in this study.1 On the other hand, in the face of delayed graft function (DGF) having PD catheter in place postoperatively leaves the potential to use that catheter for temporizing peritoneal dialysis while waiting for the allograft to recover function.2 However, as pointed out in several studies including this one, peritoneal dialysis in the post-transplant setting is also fraught with a high risk of potential complications, including fluid leakage from the incision if the peritoneum is violated during the transplant surgery.3–5 Therefore, the overall benefit to leaving a PD catheter in place seems to be minimal, especially in the live-donor population of transplants where the DGF rate is exceedingly low. In Winnipeg, we have had a very similar experience with our perioperative PD catheter situations; our new policy is to remove PD catheters on all transplant patients. As pointed out by the authors in this study,1 in the setting of DGF temporary dialysis can be facilitated by a central catheter which is very easy to place and remove and is associated with a low complication rate. In fact, most transplant recipients already have a central line in place at the time of surgery for central venous pressure monitoring and drug administration, so utilizing this line or switching it over to a dialysis line is very convenient. Despite the need for future prospective studies, the evidence points to an overall benefit of PD catheter removal at the time of kidney transplantation. This seems to outweigh the benefits of leaving in the PD catheter. Obviously, every patient and clinical scenario is different and there may be situations were this rule does not apply. Warren and colleagues make a strong case for PD catheter removal at the time of surgery.1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207