Peritoneal Catheters and Exit-Site Practices toward Optimum Peritoneal Access: A Review of Current Developments

Abstract

Objective This review updates the 1998 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) recommendations for peritoneal dialysis catheters and exit-site practices (Gokal R, et al. Peritoneal catheters and exit-site practices toward optimum peritoneal access: 1998 update. Perit Dial Int 1998; 18:11–33.) Design Data Sources: The Ovid and PubMed search engines were used to review the Medline databases of January 1980 through June 2003. Searches were restricted to human data; primary key word searches included dialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis cross referenced with access, catheter, dialysis catheter, peritoneal dialysis catheter, and Tenckhoff catheter. Related searches were provided via the PubMed related articles link. Study Selection: Reports were selected if they provided identifiable information on catheter design, catheter placement technique, and survival or placement complications. Reports without such data were excluded from review. Each study was then categorized by its characteristics: single-center or multicenter; retrospective or prospective; controlled trial, with or without random patient assignment; or review article. Main Results There are few randomized controlled evaluations testing how catheter design and/or placement influence long-term survival and function, and these are typically conducted at a single center. The majority of reports represent retrospective single-center experiences, and these are supplemented by occasional multicenter data registries. Conclusions There is substantial variability in catheter outcomes between centers, and this variability is more closely correlated with operator and center characteristics than with catheter design. Some catheter designs appear to impact long-term catheter success, and, in some cases, specific patient characteristics and dialysis formats combine with specific catheter designs to influence catheter survival. Most reporters prefer two-cuff designs and placement of the deep cuff at an intramuscular location. Intramuscular cuff placement results in fewer pericatheter leaks and hernias, but makes catheter removal more difficult. High-risk patients (those with previous pelvic surgery) benefit from visual inspection of the peritoneum during catheter placement, and in randomized controlled trials, catheters with pre-shaped arcuate subcutaneous segments (“swan neck” designs) reduce the risk of early drainage failure via “migration.”