Home About us Current issue Ahead of Print Back issues Submission Instructions Advertise Contact Login   

Search Article 
Advanced search 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
Users online: 1569 Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size 

REVIEW ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 1994  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 173-178
Comparison of CAPD and CCPD in Children and their Limitations

Division of Nephrology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence Address:
J Williamson Balfe
Professor of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Clinical Director, Division of Nephrology, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X8
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 18583829

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Soon after its introduction, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) became the choice mode of dialysis treatment for small children. With the advent of automated machines, continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) is now finding more favor in many centers. Initial cost of CCPD is higher due to the need for automated machines, but puts much less strain on the family. However, there is evidence that biochemical control is better with CAPD. Growth and nutrition in both groups are found to be similar. CCPD may have advantages over CAPD with regard to infection, since the former has fewer disconnections. The same is also true with regard to hernias and leaks. Some patients still prefer CAPD, since it allows more freedom in life style compared to CCPD.

Print this article  Email this article

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded278    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal