Clinical application of non-incision removal of tunneled cuffed catheter
10.3760/cma.j.cn441217-20211129-00082
- VernacularTitle:非切口术式拔除带隧道和涤纶套的透析导管的临床应用
- Author:
Yanqi YIN
1
;
Rong XU
;
Xuyang CHENG
;
Lijun LIU
;
Damin XU
;
Xizi ZHENG
;
Qizhuang JIN
Author Information
1. 北京大学第一医院肾脏内科，北京 100034
- Keywords:
Renal dialysis;
Catheters, indwelling;
Vascular access devices;
Tunneled cuffed catheter;
Catheter removal
- From:
Chinese Journal of Nephrology
2022;38(7):577-582
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the effectiveness and complications of non-incision removal of tunneled cuffed catheter (TCC).Methods:The clinical characteristics, surgical plans and complications of patients with TCC removal in the Renal Division of Peking University First Hospital from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into non-incision removal group and traditional incision removal group. The clinical characteristics, procedure success rate, procedural duration and complications were compared between the two groups.Results:A total of 349 patients were included in this study, for whom 368 catheter removal procedures were performed, including 286 procedures in the non-incision removal group, 75 procedures in the traditional incision removal group, and 7 procedures without records of surgical plans. There was no significant difference in age, sex, basic kidney diseases and catheter remaining time and location between the two groups (all P>0.05). Two procedures in the non-incision removal group and 1 procedure in the traditional incision removal group failed respectively, and there was no significant difference in the procedure success rate between the two groups (99.3% vs 98.7%, χ2=0.290, P=0.590). The procedural duration in the non-incision removal group was lower than that in the traditional incision removal group [(5.36±1.70) min vs (17.55±3.28) min, t=44.198, P<0.001]. Among the patients who needed TCC exchange, there was no significant difference in the selection of new catheter position between the two groups ( P=0.330). In terms of complications, there were 2 procedures of local hematoma in the non-incision removal group and 1 procedure of infection in the traditional incision removal group, and there was no severe complication in both groups. Conclusions:There was no significant difference in the procedural success rate and complications between non-incision removal group and traditional incision removal group, and non-incision procedure may be superior in reducing the procedure duration and harm less to the patients. Non-incision procedure is a safe and effective method to remove TCC.
