MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416949641 · doi:10.1186/s12882-025-04597-z

Percutaneous versus laparoscopic catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4416949641 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoxi Wang, Jin Wang, X Y Li, Woong Bae Ji, Tong Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTianjin UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPercutaneousNephrologyCatheterLaparoscopyPeritoneal dialysisLaparoscopic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is one of the relatively safe and effective renal replacement therapies for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). There are three main types of PD catheter insertion procedures: open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and percutaneous insertion. Currently, open surgery is most commonly used in clinical practice, although some hospitals have adopted laparoscopic and percutaneous insertion methods. However, there is still a lack of large-scale studies comparing percutaneous and laparoscopic catheter placement. This study aims to collect and synthesize existing literature data, analyze complications related to PD catheter insertion, and determine the optimal catheter placement method. METHODS: This Meta-analysis has been registered on the PROSPERO platform (CRD42024509930). Articles published in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI were retrieved, statistically analyzed, and reviewed. The statistical software Review Manager version 5.4.1 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of nine studies on surgical outcomes and complications were included. The article types included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one prospective study, and seven retrospective studies. The methodological quality of the 8 included non-randomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The average score was 7.4 points (range: 6 to 8), indicating an overall high study quality. According to existing literature, laparoscopic PD catheter insertion may reduce postoperative bleeding risk but is associated with a longer surgical duration. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and percutaneous catheter insertion methods in terms of the length of hospital stays, early and late complications-including peritonitis, exit-site infections, catheter malfunction and failure, hernia, and dialysate leakage. CONCLUSION: Data analysis indicates that the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and percutaneous PD catheter insertion are similar. However, large-scale, multicenter studies are still needed to further validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207