Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and cardiorenal syndrome (CRS).

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of this patient population.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent an open or laparoscopic insertion of a PD catheter at our institution between 2009 and 2017. Data included demographics, peri-operative parameters, and long-term outcome. Patient and technique survival curves are presented, including subgroup analysis by method of catheter insertion and techniques for infection prevention.

Results: The study population included 95 men and 42 women, aged 65.7 ± 12.4 years. Mean follow-up was 34.6 ± 27.3 months. Open insertion was performed in 113 cases, while 24 underwent laparoscopic insertion. There was no difference in technique survival between these groups (P = 0.943). Removal of the catheter was required in 66% of patients. Median technique survival was 12.1 months. Two-year technique survival was 37% and 5-year technique survival was 12%. The leading cause for catheter removal was infection (69%). Application of measures for prevention of infections were significantly associated with prolonged technique survival (P = 0.001). Technique survival after 2 years was 38% with the application of a single measure and 57% with the application of two measures (P = 0.001). CRS patients (n=24) had a significantly lower overall survival rate (2-year survival 20% vs. 74%, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: The method of catheter insertion has no effect on technique survival. Prevention of infections is the most significant factor for improving the technique survival rates.

Background: Following an intestinal anastomotic leak, stoma creation may be the safest approach. However, this method may be challenging and cause significant morbidity. In selected cases, a T drain approach can be beneficial and a stoma can be avoided.

Objectives: To present one group's experience with a T drain approach for anastomotic leaks.

Methods: Data on patients who underwent emergent re-laparotomy following gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks were retrieved retrospectively and assessed with a new intra-operative leak severity score.

Results: Of 1684 gastrointestinal surgeries performed from 2014 to 2018, 41 (2.4%) cases of anastomotic leaks were taken for re-laparotomy. Cases included different sites and etiologies. Twelve patients were treated with a T-tube drain inserted through the leak site, 18 had a stoma taken out, 6 re-anastomosis, 4 were treated with an Endosponge, and one primary repair with a proximal ileostomy was conducted. T drain approach was successful in 11 of 12 patients (92%) with full recovery. One patient did not improve and underwent reoperation with resection and re-anastomosis. A severity score of anastomotic integrity is provided to help surgeons in decision making.

Conclusions: A T drain approach can be an optimal solution in selected cases following an intestinal anastomotic leak. When the leak is limited, the remaining anastomosis is intact and the abdominal environment allows it, a T drain can be used and a stoma can be avoided.