ObjectivesTo systematically review the influence for catheter mechanical dysfunction of different peritoneal dialysis catheterization methods.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on comparisons of different peritoneal dialysis catheterization from inception to March 31st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using ADDIS 1.16.6 software.ResultsA total of 33 studies (9 RCTs and 24 cohort studies) involving 3 301 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that the incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunctionwas the least and had statistically significant difference compared with that in percutaneous catheterization (OR=3.60; 95%CI, 1.64 and 15.38) and open surgery catheterization (OR=5.86; 95%CI, 2.68 and 14.53). Percutaneous catheterization was superior to open surgery catheterization, but there was no significant difference.ConclusionsLaparoscopic catheterization may be the best technique for catheter insertion in peritoneal dialysis considering catheter dysfunction. Each technology has its own advantages. Choice of insertion method should be based on the characteristics of both the patient and the insertion techniques.
Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the three-dimensional motion capture analysis system COFT-Motion® in evaluating the active range of motion of upper limbs in healthy subjects, and provide objective basis for its clinical application. Methods From January to March 2022, healthy subjects were publicly recruited for enrollment. The evaluator applied the three-dimensional motion capture analysis system COFT-Motion® and angle ruler to evaluate the active range of motion of the shoulder joint (flexion, extension, adduction, abduction) and elbow joint (flexion, extension) in healthy subjects. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate validity, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate reliability. Results There was a positive correlation between the measurements of COFT-Motion® and the angle ruler of the active range of motion of upper limbs in healthy subjects. The Pearson correlation coefficients for active range of motion of the shoulder joint (flexion, extension, adduction, abduction) and elbow joint (flexion, extension) were 0.913, 0.964, 0.961, 0.941, 0.864, and 0.919, respectively (P<0.05). The results of using COFT-Motion® by different evaluators to evaluate the active range of motion of healthy subjects’ shoulder joints (flexion, extension, adduction, abduction) and elbow joints (flexion, extension) showed that the ICC values were 0.892, 0.942, 0.961, 0.988, 0.989, and 0.928, respectively (P<0.05). The results of repeated evaluations by the same evaluator showed that the ICC values were 0.795, 0.916, 0.900, 0.868, 0.918, and 0.911, respectively (P<0.05). Conclusion The application of the three-dimensional motion capture analysis system COFT-Motion® in healthy subjects has good validity and reliability. However, due to the limited sample size and subject of the study, further promotion and application of the system still need to be further explored.