Percutaneous versus laparoscopic catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".