The aim of the study is to emphasize the technique , success rate , efficacy of translumbar and transhepatic approaches and shed light on the complications of both methods and through comparison we can give recommendations to either of these methods.
For selected ESRD patients who have exhausted all conventional access routes , translumbar and transhepatic permcath provide additional sites for access. This study will compare the two methods in terms of technical success (position of catheter tip), patency (primary defined as the number of catheter days from initial placement until removal \& secondary defined as the number of catheter days after device replacement using the same access site) , mean cumulative duration of catheter in situ defined as the cumulative catheter days divided by the number of patients, function (adequacy of dialysis based on Urea Reduction Ratio URR \& Simplified Daugirdas Formula Kt/V) and complications (infectious; exit site infection \& sepsis and non-infectious; thrombosis, catheter migration, hematoma, intraperitoneal hemorrhage.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
52
For selected ESRD patients who have exhausted all conventional access routes , translumbar and transhepatic insertion of long term hemodialysis catheters provide additional sites for access
Catheter patency
patency (primary defined as the number of catheter days from initial placement until removal \& secondary defined as the number of catheter days after device replacement using the same access site) , mean cumulative duration of catheter in situ defined as the cumulative catheter days divided by the number of patients
Time frame: Baseline
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.