IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0325600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative outcomes of image-guided percutaneous catheterization versus direct visualization catheterization for peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Li
  • Lifang Li
  • Meiju Wei
  • Yanxiong Qin
  • Yuechen Qin
  • Yue Zou
  • Haijian Zeng
  • Chunlan Li
  • Tingting Liao

Abstract

Introduction: Debate persists on the optimal catheterization method for peritoneal dialysis (PD). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of image-guided percutaneous catheterization (IGPC) versus direct visualization catheterization (DVC) for peritoneal dialysis. Materials and methods: From the inception of the database until July 16, 2024, four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the central database) were searched for literature comparing IGPC versus DVC for peritoneal dialysis. Meta-analyses were conducted on infectious complications, mechanical complications, one-year PD catheter survival, and catheter removal rates. Results: Totally 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising a total of 8,981 patients, of which 2,518 patients received IGPC and 6,463 patients received DVC. IGPC exhibited lower rates of infection complications (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.04) mechanical complications (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.99, P = 0.04) and catheter removal compared to DVC (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.78, P

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Li & Lifang Li & Meiju Wei & Yanxiong Qin & Yuechen Qin & Yue Zou & Haijian Zeng & Chunlan Li & Tingting Liao, 2025. "Comparative outcomes of image-guided percutaneous catheterization versus direct visualization catheterization for peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0325600
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325600
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325600&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0325600?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0325600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.