Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513487 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8683710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProphylactic abdominal drainage is current standard practice after distal pancreatectomy (DP), with the aim to divert pancreatic fluid in case of a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) aimed to prevent further complications as bleeding. Whereas POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy, by definition, involves infection due to anastomotic dehiscence, a POPF after DP is essentially sterile since the bowel is not opened and no anastomoses are created. Routine drainage after DP could potentially be omitted and this could even be beneficial because of the hypothetical prevention of drain-induced infections (Fisher, Surgery 52:205-22, 2018). Abdominal drainage, moreover, should only be performed if it provides additional safety or comfort to the patient. In clinical practice, drains cause clear discomfort. One multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed the safety of omitting abdominal drainage but did not stratify patients according to their risk of POPF and did not describe a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Therefore, a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial is required, with prespecified POPF risk groups and a homogeneous method of stump closure. The objective of the PANDORINA trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of omitting routine intra-abdominal drainage after DP on postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and, secondarily, POPF grade B/C.Methods/designBinational multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, stratifying patients to high and low risk for POPF grade B/C and incorporating a standardized strategy for pancreatic transection. Two groups of 141 patients (282 in total) undergoing elective DP (either open or minimally invasive, with or without splenectomy). Primary outcome is postoperative rate of morbidity (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3), and the most relevant secondary outcome is grade B/C POPF. Other secondary outcomes include surgical reintervention, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic catheter drainage, abdominal collections (not requiring drainage), wound infection, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage as defined by the international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) (Wente et al., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007), length of stay (LOS), readmission within 90 days, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality.DiscussionPANDORINA is the first binational, multicenter, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with the primary objective to evaluate the hypothesis that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after DP does not worsen the risk of postoperative severe complications (Wente etal., Surgery 142:20-5, 2007; Bassi et al., Surgery 161:584-91, 2017). Most of the published studies on drain placement after pancreatectomy focus on both pancreatoduodenectomy and DP, but these two entities present are associated with different complications and therefore deserve separate evaluation (McMillan et al., Surgery 159:1013-22, 2016; Pratt et al., J Gastrointest Surg 10:1264-78, 2006). The PANDORINA trial is innovative since it takes the preoperative risk on POPF into account based on the D-FRS and it warrants homogenous stump closing by using the same graded compression technique and same stapling device (de Pastena et al., Ann Surg 2022; Asbun and Stauffer, Surg Endosc 25:2643-9, 2011).
| S-EPMC9509576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo study all the aspects of drain management in pancreatic surgery.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed (MEDLINE) for relevant articles on drain management in pancreatic surgery. The reference lists of relevant studies were screened to retrieve any further studies. We included all articles that reported clinical studies on human subjects with elective pancreatic resection and that compared various strategies of intra-abdominal drain management, such as drain vs no drain, selective drain use, early vs late drain extraction, and the use of different types of drains.ResultsA total of 19 studies concerned with drain management in pancreatic surgery involving 4194 patients were selected for this systematic review. We included studies analyzing the outcomes of pancreatic resection with and without intra-abdominal drains, studies comparing early vs late drain removal and studies analyzing different types of drains. The majority of the studies reporting equal or superior results for pancreatic resection without drains were retrospective and observational with significant selection bias. One recent randomized trial reported higher postoperative morbidity and mortality with routine omission of intra-abdominal drains. With respect to the timing of drain removal, all of the included studies reported superior results with early drain removal. Regarding the various types of drains, there is insufficient evidence to determine which type of drain is more suitable following pancreatic resection.ConclusionThe prophylactic use of drains remains controversial. When drains are used, early removal is recommended. Further trials comparing types of drains are ongoing.
| S-EPMC4616221 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8172774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of prophylactic drainage (PD) in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (GC) is not well-established. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between the PD and non-drainage (ND) in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy.MethodsA systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed up to December 2022. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included and meta-analyzed separately. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022371102.ResultsOverall, 7 RCTs (783 patients) and 14 observational studies (4359 patients) were ultimately included. Data from RCTs indicated that patients in the ND group had a lower total complications rate (OR = 0.68; 95%CI:0.47-0.98; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%), earlier time to soft diet (MD = - 0.27; 95%CI: - 0.55 to 0.00; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD = - 0.98; 95%CI: - 1.71 to - 0.26; P = 0.007; I2 = 40%). While other outcomes including anastomotic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, pancreatic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, surgical-site infection, pulmonary infection, need for additional drainage, reoperation rate, readmission rate, and mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. Meta-analyses on observational studies showed good agreement with the pooled results from RCTs, with higher statistical power.ConclusionThe present meta-analysis suggests that routine use of PD may not be necessary and even harmful in GC patients following gastrectomy. However, well-designed RCTs with risk-stratified randomization are still needed to validate the results of our study.
| S-EPMC10239187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18-4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11-2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45-2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47-1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection.
| S-EPMC7862226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been a routine practice for many years. However, the debate surrounding using it stems from conflicting evidence regarding its potential benefits and risks.MethodsPatients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from February 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022, at Aleppo University Hospital were enrolled according to our previously registered protocol (NCT05267860).ResultsThis study included 232 patients (117 in the drainage group [DG], and 115 in the non-drainage group [NDG]). There was no statistical difference in the patients' main characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The duration of the surgical operation in NDG (mean = 44.92, SD = 1.85) was shorter than in DG (mean 55.14, SD = 2.14), with (p = 0.039) statistically significant, which indicates that the use of the drainage led to a prolongation of the surgical operation. The total number of complicated cases reached 22 (9.48%) cases (DG = 9 vs. NDG = 13, p = 0.348) as follows: bleeding (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), bile leak with no established bile duct injury (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.320), wound infection (n = 12) (DG = 4 vs. NDG = 8; p = 0.443), urinary tract infection (n = 3) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 3; p = 0.079), prolonged shoulder pain (n = 2) (DG = 0 vs. NDG = 2; p = 0.152), and acute pancreatitis (n = 1) (DG = 1 vs. NDG = 0; p = 0.144).ConclusionBased on the results of our study, the use of prophylactic drainage was safe, but ineffective, as it did not improve the outcomes statistically significantly or worsen them, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting the need for personalized patient care in this setting.
| S-EPMC11310261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWhether prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is necessary remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after LLR.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LLR at Osaka Rosai Hospital from April 2011 to November 2018 was performed. During this period, prophylactic abdominal drainage was routinely omitted during LLR without biliary anastomosis. The primary endpoint was the frequency of additional abdominal drainage. The secondary endpoint was the rate of postoperative complications.ResultsNinety-six patients (96%) underwent partial resection or lateral segmentectomy, and 89 patients (89%) were Child-Pugh grade A. The median operative time was 102 (range, 31-274) minutes. The median blood loss was minimal (range, 0-280 ml), and blood transfusion was performed for one patient (1%). One case (1%) was converted to open surgery. Additional abdominal drainage was required for one patient (1%) with an intraabdominal abscess. Postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (5%). High-grade complications (≥grade III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) were seen in two patients (2%). There were no cases of reoperation or perioperative death. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (range, 4-65) days.ConclusionsProphylactic abdominal drainage could be safely omitted for selected patients and operative procedures.
| S-EPMC7136585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is the most common cause of major morbidity following pancreatic resection. Intra-abdominal drains are frequently positioned adjacent to the pancreatic anastomosis or transection margin at the time of surgery to aid in detection and management of CR-POPF. Drains can either evacuate fluid by passive gravity (PG) or be attached to a closed suction (CS) system using negative pressure. There is controversy as to whether one of these two systems is superior. The objective of this review is to identify and compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and resource utilisation associated with PG and CS drainage following pancreatic resections.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception to April 2019, to identify interventional and observational studies comparing PG and CS drains following pancreatic resection. The primary outcome is POPF as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Fistula in 2017. Secondary outcomes include postoperative AE, resource utilisation (length of stay, return to emergency department, readmission and reintervention), time to drain removal and quality of life. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed independently, by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed statistically appropriate. Subgroup analysis by study design will be performed. Study heterogeneity will be calculated with the χ2 test and reported as I2 statistics. Statistical analyses will be conducted and displayed using RevMan V.5.3 ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The results of this study will be submitted to relevant conferences for presentation and peer-reviewed journals for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42019123647.
| S-EPMC6756355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn Italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.MethodsA database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. The primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i.ResultsA total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). A mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. No difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints.ConclusionThis study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery.
| S-EPMC10763998 | biostudies-literature