Laparoscopic placement of the Tenckhoff catheter for peritoneal dialysis.
ABSTRACT Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheters can be inserted by open laparotomy as well as by laparoscopy. A prospective randomized study was scheduled to investigate the results of the laparoscopic versus open laparotomy technique for placement of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheters. Fifty patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups of 25 patients each. Group A underwent continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter placement via the open laparotomy technique. In 22 patients, catheters were inserted via midline incision, and in 3 patients with histories of previous catheterization, a paramedian incision was used. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was started 24 to 48 hours later. Group B underwent laparoscopic placement of the catheter with fixation into the pelvis and suture closure of the port wounds. In 21 patients, this catheter placement was the first such placement, and in 4 patients, a previous catheter had been inserted by the open technique and removed for dysfunction. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was started at the end of the procedure. The mean operative time was 22 minutes in group A and 29 minutes in group B (P < 0.001). Fluid leakage was observed in eight patients in group A, but in no patients in group B (P < 0.005). Peritonitis occurred in five patients in group A and in three patients in group B (P > 0.1). Tip migration occurred in five patients in group A and no patients in group B (P < 0.005). In group B, two patients underwent a simultaneous cholecystectomy and one underwent incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic placement of a Tenckhoff catheter leads to better function than does the open procedure; it allows immediate start of dialysis without fluid leakage and permits simultaneous performance of other laparoscopic procedures.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Permanent peritoneal dialysis (PD) access was first described and introduced in clinical practice more than 40 years ago. It is still undergoing modification and adaptation to various insertion techniques. PD Catheter insertion is commonly performed via one of the three techniques: (a) open surgical, (b) fluoroscopic-guided placement or blind percutaneous placements using a modified Seldinger technique and (c) minimally invasive. Catheter placement is thought to be the key to a successful PD programme and the economic advantages are lost if a patient switches to HD during the 1st year due to failure of PD. The objective of this document was to conduct an evidence-based assessment of a minimally invasive approach to PD catheter insertion, with particular regard to failure rates secondary to catheter dysfunction. Case series and randomised controlled trials suggest that laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is safe, and useful for insertion of PD catheters in patients who have undergone previous abdominal surgery. An overall success rate of 90% with a less than 5% associated leak rate has been quoted, although a cost benefit analysis has not been performed. However, good grade I evidence is lacking and open surgery may be quicker, though results from on-going trial are awaited with interest.Journal of nephrology 01/2014; · 2.02 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative modality to hemodialysis and is usually used to treat patients with end-stage renal disease. Dual-incision laparoscopic surgery (DILS) had been reported in several surgical fields; however, no report was proposed about DILS in PD catheter implantation (DILS-PD). In this study, we present DILS with a novel, simple, and safe procedure for PD catheter implantation with fixation and describe the long-term outcome. Subjects and Methods: We conducted a prospective data collection and retrospective review of all PD patients from April 2010 until June 2012. During this study period, we performed open surgery for PD catheter implantation (OS-PD) and DILS-PD concurrently. Demographic data, medical, operative, and postoperative findings, and information regarding complications were compared between these two groups. Results: Forty-eight patients had DILS-PD, and 70 patients had OS-PD. There was no difference between the two groups in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, creatinine level, body mass index, and previous abdominal surgery. There was no surgical mortality in either group. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 24 months, with a mean of 22.4±16.5 months. There was no tube migration in the DILS-PD group, but 25.7% of the patients in the OS-PD group had tube migration (P<.001). A significantly decreased exit-site/tunnel infection rate was found in the DILS-PD group (4.2%) compared with the OS-PD group (17.1%) (P=.032). However, there was no obvious difference in peritonitis occurrence between groups. A significantly decreased catheter failure rate was found in the DILS-PD group (4.2%) compared with the OS-PD group (22.9%) (P=.006). DILS-PD group patients had a favorable survival rate for catheter implantation compared with OS-PD group patients. Conclusions: Our DILS-PD with fixation technique is a simple and safe procedure. This procedure minimized or even eliminated the possibility of migration without additional cost. Our DILS-PD fixatation technique should be recommended for use routinely.Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 07/2013; · 1.07 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is associated with a lower rate of complications. Aim: To report the experience in laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Material and Methods: Review of medical records of 81 patients aged 15 to 90 years (42 males) subjected to the procedure between 2010 and 2013. Results: A three port plus omentopexy technique was used. Surgical time was 51 minutes. Other simultaneous surgical procedures were performed in four patients. No patient died, had a bowel perforation or required conversion to open surgery. Ninety eight percent of patients were discharged less than 24 hours after the procedure, using standard analgesics. Four patients required a new surgical procedure due to minor complications. All installed catheters were functional until the moment of his review. Conclusions: Laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is a safe and effective procedure.Revista chilena de cirugía. 12/2013; 65(6):530-533.
Sur gical Inparo scopy, Endoscopy & P ercutaneous Techniques
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.218)21
O 2(n0 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., Philadelphia
Laparoscopic Placement of the Tenckhoff Catheter for
Evangelos C. T. Tsimoyiannis, MD, FACS, FABI, Philipos Siakas, MD, George Glantzounis, MD,
Chrysoula Toli, MD, George Sferopoulos, MD, Michael Pappas, MD, and
Adamandia Manataki. MD
Summary: Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheters can be inserted by
open laparotomy as well as by laparoscopy. A prospective randomized study was
scheduled to investigate the results'of the laparoscopic versus open laparotomy tech-
nique for placement of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheters. Fifty pa-
tients were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups of25 patients each. Group
A underwent continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis catheter placement via the
open laparotomy technique. ln22patients, catheters were inserted via midline incision,
and in 3 patients with histories of previous catheterization, a paramedian incision was
used. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was started 24 to 48 hours later.
Group B underwent laparoscopic placement of the catheter with fixation into the pelvis
and suture closure ofthe port wounds. In 2l patients, this catheter placement was the
first such placement, and in 4 patients, a previous catheter had been inserted by the
open technique and removed for dysfunction. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal di-
alysis was started at the end of the procedure. The mean operative time was 22 minutes
in group A and 29 minutes in group B (P < 0.001). Fluid leakage was observed in eight
patients in group A, but in no patients in group B (P < 0.005). Peritonitis occurred in
five patients in group A and in three patients in group B (P > 0.1). Tip migration
occurred in five patients in group A and no patients in group B (P < 0.005). In group
B, two patients underwent a simultaneous cholecystectomy and one underwent inci-
sional hernia repair. Laparoscopic placement of a Tenckhoff catheter leads to better
function than does the open procedure; it allows immediate start of dialysis without
fluid leakage and permits simultaneous performance of other laparoscopic procedures.
Key Words: Cholecystectomy-Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis-
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is
an effective method of renal replacement therapy for
patients with end-stage renal disease. Since the introduc-
tion of a suitable long-term indwelling catheter in 1968
(1), this device has gained widespread acceptance,
thereby populprizing peritoneal dialysis as an acceptable
alternative to hemodialysis (2).
Despite the increased use of the Tenckhoff catheter for
Received November 7,1999; revision received April 18, 2000; ac-
cepted April 21,2000.
From the Departments of Surgery (ET, PS, GG, CT), Nephrology
(GS, MP), and Anesthesiology (AM), G. Hatzikosta General Hospital,
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Evangelos C.
Tsimoyiannis, MD, 3, Hippocratus, Stavraki, GR-45332 Ioannina, Greece.
CAPD and the standardization of surgical techniques,
this device is still associated with a significant number of
complications, such as peritonitis and outflow obstruc-
tion (2,3). Various techniques have been described for
the placement of CAPD catheters. Traditionally, an open
laparotomy technique has been used via a lower abdomi-
nal incision. Recently, laparoscopic guidance has been
used to site the catheter under direct vision (4,5). Lapa-
roscopy has also been used to salvage catheters that are
dysfunctional because of omental adhesions and migra-
tion of the tip (2,6-9).
Until now, there have not been any prospective trials
comparing which technique is best for the placement of
Tenckhoff catheters. Therefore, we designed a prospec-
tive randomized clinical studv to investisate the results
of the laparoscopic versus open laparotomy technique in
the placement of Tenckhoff catheters for CAPD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was approved by the Scientific Committee
on Human Rights in Research of the G. Hatzikosta Gen-
eral Hospital, Ioannina, Greece. Adult patients undergo-
ing insertion of a Tenckhoff catheter for CAPD gave
their informed consent to participate in this study. Pa-
tients were excluded only if a problem for general anes-
thesia was found. Fifty patients were randomly assigned
(a closed envelope contained information regarding
placement into group A or B) to one of two groups of 25
patients each. Group A underwent an open laparotomy
technique with local anesthesia. In22patients, the cath-
eter was inserted through a 3- to 4-cm midline incision,
and in 3 patients with histories of a previous catheteiza-
tion, a small paramedian incision was used. No intraab-
dominal fixation of the catheter was performed. After the
procedure, the patients were transported to the nephrol-
ogy department. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal di-
alysis was started 24 to 48 hours later using small
amounts offluid, and several days later, the full program
of CAPD was started. Group B underwent laparoscopic
placement of the catheter. With general anesthesia, the
patient was placed in a supine 30o Trendelenburg posi-
tion. We inserted three 10-mm tfocars; the first was in-
serted infraumbilically with a Hasson technique, the sec-
ond was inserted suprapubicly, and the third was inserted
at the left midcostal line between the iliac fossa and
umbilicus. A fourth 5*mm trocar was inserted at the left
iliac fossa (5). The laparoscope (0'or 30o) was placed
through the infraumbilical port. A Tenckhoff catheter
was introduced through the suprapubic port, which was
then removed over the catheter, leaving the catheter to
pass through the abdominal wall. The hole was sutured
around the catheter on the inside cuff with an Endoclose
needle (United States Surgical Corp., Norwalk, CT,
USA) and nonabsorbable suture. Using the other two
ports as working ports, we placed the catheter tip into the
pelvis. The catheter was then secured to the back wall of
the uterus in women or to the peritoneum ovedying the
back wall of the bladder in men, with 210 polypropylene
laparoscopically placed sutures. The holes of the work-
ing ports were closed as the catheter hole with the En-
doclose needle, using full-thickness nonabsorbable su-
tures, and the umbilical hole was sutured with open
manner. A grasping forceps was placed through the
wound of the midcostal working port and oriented to the
suprapubic wound so as to create a subcutaneous tunnel
for pa'ssage of the outer end of the catheter. This subcu-
taneous tunnel was continued between the two working
por"ts so that the final exit of the outer end of the catheter
was to be the port wound of the left iliac fossa. In 21
patients, this catheter was the first catheter inserted,
whereas in 4 patients, a previous catheter inserted by
open technique was removed (for dysfunction). In these
four patients, the catheter placement was performed after
laparoscopic lysis of adhesions. Immediately after the
end of the procedure, the CAPD was started, and the
patient was transported to the nephrology department to
continue the CAPD program. Data were analyzed using
the unpaired two-tailed r test and X2 analysis. Signifi-
cance was defined as P < 0.05.
Demographic characteristics of patients were compa-
rable for the two groups (Table 1). Six patients were
excluded from the study because they developed severe
cardiovascular or respiratory disease, which contraindi-
cated general anesthesia; all of these patients were oper-
ated on using the open technique with local anesthesia.
The mean operative time was significantly lower in
group A than in group B (Table l). The difference in
postoperative peritonitis was not statistically significant,
whereas the fluid leaking and tip migration of the cath-
LAPAROSCOPIC PLACEMENT OF TENCKHOFF CATHETER
TABLE l. Demographic data and operative variables
Results by group
Mean operative time (min)
Fluid leaks (no. patients)
Peritonitis (no. patients)
Tip catheter migration (no. patients)
Removal of the catheter (no. patients)
E t test
I X' test.
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2000
E, C. T. TSIMOYIANNIS ET AL.
eter had a significantly lower incidence in group B than
in group A. In group A, three of five patients with peri-
tonitis had their catheter removed after 6, 11, and 15
months postoperatively, respectively. In group B, one of
three patients with peritonitis had the catheter removed
12 months later.
In group A, there were two coexisting diseases (cho-
lelithiasis in one patient and a small inguinal hernia in
one patient), but no simultaneous therapy was per-
formed. In group B, there were three coexisting diseases
(cholelithiasis in two patients and incisional hernia in
one), and simultaneous cholecystectomies and a laparo-
scopic incisional hernia repair were performed. Addi-
tionally, five patients in group B who underwent
previous laparotomies had an extended adhesiolysis
performed before catheter placement. In group A, in
three patients with a history of previous catheterization
and in one patient with a previous midline laparotomy, a
paramedian incision was used with adhesiolysis near the
incision because the small laparotomy made extensive
In both groups, the remaining catheters are functioning
well (4-36 months; mean,2I +10), except for three pa-
tients in group A with diminished fluid return because of
migration of the tip.
Peritoneal dialysis continues to gain popularity for
treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease. De-
spite the widespread acceptance of CAPD, success is
limited by the need for a functioning Tenckhoff catheter
(2). In 1991, approximately 20Vo of the 4,300 patients
who discontinued peritoneal dialysis did so because of
catheter failure (10). Many reports describe the compli-
cations of CAPD as peritonitis, outflow obstruction, ex-
traperitoneal placement of catheters, genital edema,
hernias, dialysate leak, cuff extrusion, and respiratory
compromise (2,3,11-14). The improvement of surgical
technique in open surgery has decreased the incidence of
these complications (3,1 1,15).
Laparoscopy has been reported in small series of pa-
tients for placement of Tenckhoff catheters for CAPD
(5,16*18). In addition, some papers have described lap-
aroscopic management of malfunctioning peritoneal di-
alysis catheters (2,19-21). These papers have shown that
the laparoscopic approach is a useful addition to the sur-
gical armamentarium for patients with malfunctioning
CAPD catheters and that laparoscopic placement of the
CAPD catheters has significant advantages over open
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutqneous Techniques, VoL 10, No. 1, 2000
There were two distinct advantages to laparoscopic
placement of CAPD catheters. First, suture fixation of
the tip catheter prevents catheter migration. The inci-
dence of catheter tip migration, resulting in poor return
of dialysate, is significantly higher when the catheter has
not been sutured into the pelvis (23). An open laparoto-
my technique can be used to enable suture fixation to
overcome the problem of catheter migration. However,
the associated pain and morbidity are significant because
of the lower abdominal incision. The laparoscopic inser-
tion of the Tenckhoff catheter reduces wound-related
morbidity while still allowing suture fixation of the cath-
eter tip. In the current study, catheter migration was pre-
vented in all patients in the laparoscopic group, whereas
in the open laparotomy group, this problem was observed
in 207a of cases.
The second advantage of laparoscopic placement of
CAPD catheters is that closure of the port wounds pre-
vents fluid leaking so that the commencement of dialysis
is started immediately. We believe that leakage was less
significant in the laparoscopic group because the port
wounds are significantly smaller than those resulting
from small laparotomy in open surgery, which means
that the closure is more water-tight for the laparoscopic
than for the open laparotomy group.
The ability to perform simultaneous operative proce-
dures during laparoscopic placement of CAPD catheters
is essential. Avoidance of an incision and the reduction
of surgical procedures are of vital significance for these
high-risk patients. Laparoscopic hernioplasty is an easy
procedure (24) and facilitates CAPD, whereas an open
hernia repair can be accompanied by fluid leakage and is
associated with a high incidence of recurrence. There-
fore, we believe that for patients with coexisting surgical
abdominal diseases who are in good condition for gen-
eral anesthesia and in whom placement of a CAPD cath-
eter is indicated, the laparoscopic approach is preferable.
Conversely, in patients with contraindications to general
anesthesia, the open technique with local anesthesia is
the procedure of choice.
In the current study, no morbidity from general anes-
thesia was observed, but patients with problems contra-
indicating this type of anesthesia were excluded. Perhaps
spinal anesthesia will minimize the anesthesia contrain-
dications of the laparoscopic approach, but this type of
anesthesia must be investigated for laparoscopic place-
ment of CAPD catheters.
In conclusion, the laparoscopic placement of Tenck-
hoff catheters currently necessitates more operative time
and general anesthesia, but it leads to accurate place-
ment of the catheter tip with better catheter function,
and it allows for immediate dialysis. Fluid leakage is
minimized, and other laparoscopic procedures can be
performed simultaneously. Therefore, the laparoscopi-
capproach for placement of CAPD catheters is an excel-
lent alternative to the open approach.
1. Tenckhoff H, Schechter H. A bacterioiogically safe peritoneal ac-
cess device. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1968;14:18l-6.
2. Kimmelstiel FM, Miller RE, Molinelli BM, Lorch JA. Laparoscop-
ic management of peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Gynecol Ob-
3. Fleisher AG, Kimmelstiel FM, Lattes CG, Miiier RE. Surgical
complications of peritoneal dialysis cathetrs. Am J Surg 1985;149:
4. Ash SR, Wolf GC, Bloch R. Placement of the Tenckhoff peritoneal
dialysis catheter under peritoneoscopic visualization. Dial Trans -.
5. Watson DI, Paterson D, Bannister K. Secure placement of perito-
neal dialysis catheters using a laparoscopic technique. Surg Lapa-
rosc Endosc 1996;6:35-7.
6. Chao S-H, Tsai T-J. Laparoscopic rescue of dysfunctional Tenck-
hoff catheters in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis pa-
tienls. N e p h ro n 1993 ;65 : | 57 -8.
7. Kittur DS, Gazaway PM, Abidin MR. Laparoscopic repositioning
ofmalfunctioning peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Laparosc En-
8. Gibson DH, Heasiey RN, Price JH, Doherty CC, Douglas JF. Lap-
aroscopic repositioning of blocked peritoneal dialysis catheters in
patients on CAPD fletter]. Clin Nephrol 1990;33:208.
9. Owens LV, Brader AH. Laparoscopic salvage of Tenckhoff cath-
eters. Sarg Endosc 1995;9:517-8.
10. United States Department of Health and Human Services. United
States Renal Data System: Annual Data Report 1991. Bethesda,
MD: National Institutes of Health, 1991.
11. Perlmutt LM, Braun SD, Cohan RH, Dunnick NR. Extraperitoneal
placement of Tenckhoff catheters: a cause of immediate malfunc-
tion. A"/R Am J Roentgenol 1987 148:1211-2.
12. Francis DM, Donnelly PK, Veitch PS, et al. Surgical aspects of
continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: 3 years experience. Br
J Surg 1984;71:225-9.
13. Bullmaster JR, Miller SF, Finley RK, Jones LM. Surgical aspects
of the Tenckhoff peritoneal dialysis catheter: a 7 yeea experience.
Am J Surg 1985;149:33942.
14. Swartz RD. Chronic peritoneal dialysis: mechanical and infectious
complications. Nephron 1985;40:29-37.
15. Spence PA, Mathews RE, Khanna R, Oreopoulos DG. Improved
results with a paramedian technique for the insertion of peritoneal
dialysis catheters. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:585-7.
16. Brunk E. Peritoneoscopic placement of a Tenckhoff catheter for
chronic peritoneal dialysis. Endoscopy 1985; 17: 1 86-8
17. Cunningham JT, Tucker CT. Peritoneoscopy in chronic peritoneal
dialysis use in evaluation and management of complications. Gas-
troihtest Endosc 1983:29:47 -50.
18. Ash SR, Wolf GC, Bloch R. Placement of the Tenckhoff peritoneal
catheter under peritoneoscopic visualizatton. Dial Transplant
19. Kittur DS, Gasaway PM, Abidin MR. Laparoscopic repositioning
of malfunctioning peritoneal dialysis catheters. Surg Laparosc En-
20. Wilson JA, Swarlz RD. Peritoneoscopy in the management of
catheter malfunction during continuous ambulatory peritoneal di-
alysis. Dlg Dis Sci 1985;30:465J.
21. Maher PJ, Harries DJ, Goggin MJ. Laparoscopic removal of an
intraperitoneal dialysis catheter. Br J Clin Pract 1980:34:226.
22. Pastan S, Gassensmith C, Manatunga AK, Copley JB, Smith EJ,
Hamburger RJ. Prospective comparison of peritoneoscopic and
surgical implantation of CAPD catheters. ASAIO Trans l99I:'37:
23. HwangTL, Chen MF, Leu ML. Comparison for four techniques of
catheter insertion in patients undergoing continuous ambulatory
peritoneal dialysis. Eur J Surg 1995;161:4014.
24. Tsimoyiannis EC, Tassis A, Glantzounis G, Jabarin M, Siakas P,
Tzourou H. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair of in-
cisional hernia. Surg ktparosc Endosc 1998;8:360-2.
LAPAROSCOPIC PIACEMENT OF TENCKHOFF CATHETER
Surgical lnparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2000