↓ Skip to main content

Intestinal perforation by a peritoneal dialysis catheter in which fungal peritonitis led to diagnosis: a rare case report

Overview of attention for article published in CEN Case Reports, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Intestinal perforation by a peritoneal dialysis catheter in which fungal peritonitis led to diagnosis: a rare case report
Published in
CEN Case Reports, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13730-018-0328-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hisato Shima, Shogo Mizoguchi, Yuji Morine, Manabu Tashiro, Kazuyoshi Okada, Jun Minakuchi, Shu Kawashima

Abstract

Intestinal perforation by a peritoneal catheter is an uncommon, but serious, complication that has a high mortality rate. Intestinal perforation in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients is difficult to diagnose using symptoms and radiological findings, which may result in a delay in diagnosis. Moreover, intestinal perforation complicated with fungal peritonitis is reportedly a severe condition with a poor prognosis. Herein, we report the case of a 78-year-old man on PD, whose diagnosis of perforative peritonitis was difficult to diagnose preoperatively. He was transferred to our hospital complaining of relapsing PD-related peritonitis due to Klebsiella oxytoca infection 2 months after the insertion of the PD catheter. He had been treated with various antibiotics in the previous hospital. Over the course of treatment, he complained of diarrhea, which was diagnosed as acute enteritis. Upon admission to our hospital, he had no abnormal clinical signs except for a cloudy PD effluent. Blood examination showed a high C-reactive protein level (8.41 mg/dL), a white blood cell count in the PD fluid of 367 cell/µL (neutrophils 55.1%), and the presence of Candida parapsilosis. We initiated antifungal therapy and, during catheter removal, found evidence of intestine perforations by the PD catheter, which were successfully repaired. After catheter removal and intestine repair, he recovered and was discharged to continue undergoing hemodialysis. Based on our case, we recommend that intestine perforations should be considered as a cause of relapsing PD-related peritonitis with abdominal symptoms, particularly watery diarrhea. Furthermore, catheter removal and antifungal administration should be initiated earlier after the diagnosis of fungal peritonitis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Other 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from CEN Case Reports
#183
of 298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,654
of 342,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CEN Case Reports
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.