4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of removing peritoneal dialysis catheters using the pull technique

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03761-4

关键词

Peritoneal dialysis; Peritoneal dialysis catheter; Catheter removal; Pull technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter removal using the pull technique. The results of the retrospective analysis showed that this technique was effective, safe, and cost-effective.
PurposeTo study the efficacy and safety of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter removal using the pull technique.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 36 patients in whom the pull technique was used to remove a PD catheter. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and health economic benefits of this technique by analyzing the pain score, duration of the procedure, complications during or after the procedure, and cost.ResultsThe mean age (& PLUSMN; standard deviation) of the 36 patients was 51 & PLUSMN; 14 years involving 27 males and 9 females with a mean body mass index was 23.4 & PLUSMN; 2.6. The mean duration of PD was 28 months (range 4-96 months). The site of the pull technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter removal was at the bedside or in the treatment room, with local anesthesia or no anesthesia. The mean duration of the procedure (from anesthesia to complete removal of the PD catheter) was 5-15 min. Only one patient experienced catheter rupture and no patients developed procedural or post-procedural bleeding or abdominal wall leakage. Infection did not occur at the inner or outer cuffs, tunnel, or outlet. Pain scores analyzed by a 10-point visual analogue scoring technique both immediately and 24 h after the procedure were 3.5 & PLUSMN; 1.7 and 1.2 & PLUSMN; 0.8, respectively.ConclusionsThe pull technique is simple to perform, takes a short time, results in few complications and small wounds, causes only mild pain, enables fast recovery, and results in low medical costs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据