ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Optimizing peritoneal dialysis access: a propensity score-matched comparison of open, multi-port, and single-port laparoscopic catheter insertion.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is a vital kidney replacement therapy that offers substantial lifestyle advantages and preserves residual renal function. Nevertheless, the long-term success of PD is contingent upon the reliable function and longevity of the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC). There is still no high-quality evidence regarding the optimal surgical approach for PDC insertion.
methodsA multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study was conducted on 484 consecutive adult patients undergoing PDC insertion at five centres between 2010 and 2024. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to compare open and laparoscopic groups (139 pairs) and laparoscopic single-port and multi-port groups (72 pairs). The primary endpoints encompassed PDC-specific complications (malfunction, infection, leakage) and surgical morbidity.
resultsFollowing PSM, the laparoscopic group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of PDC-specific complications (26.6% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.030) and a reduced necessity for surgical catheter repositioning (6.5% vs. 15.1%, p = 0.032) in comparison to the open group. Patients in the laparoscopic cohort were more frequently managed as day cases (25.9% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.009). In the laparoscopic cohort, the single-port technique was associated with a significantly shorter operative times (43 (IQR 35-60) vs. 55 (IQR 45-65) min, p < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (0 (0-1) vs. 1 (IQR 0) days, p < 0.001), and fewer PDC-specific complications (22.2% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.001) when compared with multi-port access.
conclusionLaparoscopic PDC insertion has been shown to result in a lower incidence of malfunction episodes and reduced repositioning rates when compared with open surgery. The single-port laparoscopic approach has been shown to optimise the utilisation of resources by reducing operative times and hospital stays, whilst also potentially minimizing the occurrence of infectious complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42443673What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.