Dataset Information

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method.

Results

Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214).

Conclusions

The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive.

SUBMITTER: van der Wilt AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3633034 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection.

van der Wilt Aart A AA Coolsen Mariëlle M E MM de Hingh Ignace H J T IH van der Wilt Gert Jan GJ Groenewoud Hans H Dejong Cornelis H C CH van Dam Ronald M RM

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 20121130 5

<h4>Background</h4>To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperat ...[more]

PMID: 23557407

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the recent large number of studies comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (diameter ≤ 5 cm), the results remain conflicting. The objective of this work was to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic resection vs. laparoscopic resection.MethodsThe meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched medical databases up to January 2020. Meta-analytical random or fixed effects models were used in pooled analyses. Meta-regression, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to improve the accuracy of the conclusion. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results.ResultsA total of 12 cohort studies with 1383 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic resection were identified, while three cohort studies with 167 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery were found. We found that endoscopic resection had shorter operation times (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -40.8 min to -13.4 min) and lengths of hospital stay (WMD = -1.43 d, 95% CI: -2.31 d to -0.56 d) than did laparoscopic resection. The results were stable and reliable. There were no significant differences in terms of blood loss, hospitalization costs, incidence of complications or recurrence rates. For tumor sizes 2 - 5 cm, endoscopic resection increased the risk of positive margins (relative risk [RR] = 5.78, 95% CI: 1.31 - 25.46). Although operation times for endoscopic resection were shorter than those of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (WMD = -41.03 min, 95% CI: -59.53 min to -22.54 min), there was a higher incidence of complications (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.57 - 10.34).ConclusionsIn general, endoscopic resection is an alternative method for gastric GISTs ≤ 5 cm. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery may work well in combination. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate or update these results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment. However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications. METHODS:We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms "colorectal" or "colon/colonic" or "rectum/rectal" and "anastomo*" and "drain or drainage." Reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications. We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two authors independently extracted data. RESULTS:Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group). Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR)?=?1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62, P?=?0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR?=?1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39, P?=?0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR?=?0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51, P?=?0.74), (4) mortality (RR?=?0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55, P?=?0.81), (5) wound infection (RR?=?1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69, P?=?0.34), (6) re-operation (RR?=?1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85, P?=?0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR?=?0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23, P?=?0.34). CONCLUSIONS:Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.

Project description:IntroductionProphylactic intra-peritoneal drainage has been considered to be an effective measure to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatectomy. However, routinely placed drainage during abdominal surgery may be unnecessary or even harmful to some patients, due to the possibility of increasing complications. And there is still controversy about the prophylactic intra-peritoneal drainage after pancreatectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the incidence of complications after either pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) in the drain group and no-drain group.MethodsData were retrieved from four electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to December 2020, including the outcomes of individual treatment after PD and DP, mortality, morbidity, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leak, wound infection, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, intervened radiology (IR), and readmission. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and the criteria of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies included.ResultsWe included 15 studies after strict screening. 13 studies with 16,648 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different surgery procedures, and 4 studies with 6,990 patients were analyzed to assess the effect of drain placement on patients with different fistula risk. For patients undergoing PD, the drain group had lower mortality but higher rate of CR-POPF than the no-drain group. For patients undergoing DP, the drain group had higher rates of CR-POPF, wound infection and readmission. There were no significant differences in bile leak, hemorrhage, DGE, intra-abdominal abscess, and IR in either overall or each subgroup. For Low-risk subgroup, the rates of hemorrhage, DGE and morbidity were higher after drainage. For High-risk subgroup, the rate of hemorrhage was higher while the rates of reoperation and morbidity were lower in the drain group.ConclusionsIntraperitoneal drainage may benefit some patients undergoing PD, especially those with high pancreatic fistula risk. For DP, current evidences suggest that routine drainage might not benefit patients, but no clear conclusions can be drawn because of the study limitations.

Dataset Information

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets