Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective Cohort study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had a significant impact on elective surgery for benign disease. We examined the effects of COVID-19 related delays on the outcomes of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in an upper gastrointestinal surgery unit in the UK. We have analysed data retrospectively of patients undergoing elective LC between 01/03/2019 to 01/05/2019 and 01/04/2021 to 11/06/2021. Demographics, waiting time to surgery, intra-operative details and outcome data were compared between the two cohorts. Indications for surgery were grouped as inflammatory (acute cholecystitis, gallstone pancreatitis, CBD stone with cholangitis) or non-inflammatory (biliary colic, gallbladder polyps, CBD stone without cholangitis). A p value of <0.05 was used for statistical significance. Out of the 159 patients included, 106 were operated pre-pandemic and 53 during the pandemic recovery phase. Both groups had similar age, gender, ASA-grades and BMI. In the pre-pandemic group, 68 (64.2%) were operated for a non-inflammatory pathology compared to 19 (35.8%) from the recovery phase cohort (p < 0.001). The waiting time to surgery was significantly higher amongst patients operated during the recovery phase (p = 0000.1). Less patients had complete cholecystectomy during the pandemic recovery phase (p = 0.04). There were no differences in intraoperative times and patient outcomes. These results demonstrate the impact of COVID-19 related delays to our cohort, however due to the retrospective nature of this study, the current results need to be backed up by higher evidence in order for strong recommendations to be made.

Should surgical drainage after lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy be routine?-A retrospective comparative study

Background

Whether to use surgical drains after abdominal surgery or not has received much attention since a hundred years ago. Nowadays, lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LTLA) is a widely used technique to treat adrenal tumors worldwide. However, the placement of drains after LTLA remains controversial.

Methods

Data of 150 patients, who underwent LTLA between October 2014 and September 2020 by the same lead surgeon, were collected, including demographic, pathology, preoperative, operative variables and postoperative complications. The patients were divided into two groups, with and without drainage. The postoperative recovery of the two groups was compared.

Results

Among 150 patients (65 men and 85 women, median age 48 years, median BMI 23.53), 89 patients had no drainage and 61 patients had drainage after surgery. Variables of the two groups were analyzed. Placement of drains correlated with long operative time (P<0.01). Patients with drain had longer hospital stays (P<0.001) and a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P=0.022). Other factors, including tumor size (P=0.61), tumor location (P=0.387), ASA score (P=0.687), pathology (P=0.55), VAS pain score (P=0.41), intraoperative blood loss (P=0.11), were not found to be significantly associated with drain placement. There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Moreover, no mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

This study revealed that it is feasible and safe not to leave a drain in selective and uncomplicated patients and that surgical drainage should not be routine after LTLA.

Evidence to support a drain-free strategy in kidney transplantation using a retrospective comparison of 500 consecutively transplanted cases at a single center

Introduction

Routine placement of surgical drains at the time of kidney transplant has been debated in terms of its prognostic value.

Objectives

To determine whether the placement of a surgical drain affects the incidence rate of developing wound complications and other clinical outcomes, particularly after controlling for other prognostic factors.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 500 consecutive renal transplant cases who did not (Drain-free, DF) vs. did (Drain, D) receive a drain at the time of transplant was performed. The primary outcome was the development of any wound complication (superficial or deep) during the first 12 months post-transplant. Secondary outcomes included the development of superficial wound complications, deep wound complications, DGF, and graft loss during the first 12 months post-transplant.

Results

388 and 112 recipients had DF/D, respectively. DF-recipients were significantly more likely to be younger, not have pre-transplant diabetes, receive a living donor kidney, receive a kidney-alone transplant, have a shorter duration of dialysis, shorter mean cold-ischemia-time, and greater pre-transplant use of anticoagulants/antiplatelets. Wound complications were 4.6% (18/388) vs. 5.4% (6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.75). Superficial wound complications were observed in 0.8% (3/388) vs. 0.0% (0/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.35). Deep wound complications were observed in 4.1% (16/388) vs. 5.4% ((6/112) in DF vs. D groups, respectively (P = 0.57). Higher recipient body mass index and ≥ 1 year of pre-transplant dialysis were associated in multivariable analysis with an increased incidence of wound complications. Once the prognostic influence of these 2 factors were controlled, there was still no notable effect of drain use (yes/no). The lack of prognostic effect of drain use was similarly observed for the other clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

In a relatively large cohort of renal transplant recipients, routine surgical drain use appears to offer no distinct prognostic advantage.

Prophylactic drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In the literature, there is a large evidence against the use of drains in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in elective surgery. However, evidence is lacking in the setting of acute cholecystitis (AC). The present meta-analysis was performed to assess the role of drains to reduce complications and improve recovery in LC for AC. An electronic search of the MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, SpringerLink, Scopus, and Cochrane Library database from January 1990 to July 2018 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in LC for AC. Odds ratio (OR) with confidence interval (CI) for qualitative variables and mean difference (MD) with CI for continuous variables were calculated. Three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 382 patients randomized to drain (188) versus no drain (194). Morbidity was similar in both the study groups (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.55-2.76; p = 0.61) as well as wound infection rate (OR 1.98; 95% CI 0.53-7.40; p = 0.31) and abdominal abscess rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.08-4.71; p = 0.31). Abdominal pain 24 h after surgery was less severe in the no drain group (MD 0.80; 95% CI 0.46-1.14; p < 0.000). A significant difference in favor of the no drain group was found in the postoperative hospital stay (MD 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.22; p < 0.000). No significant difference was present with respect to postoperative fluid collection in the subhepatic area and operative time. The present study shows that prophylactic drain placement is useless to reduce complications in LC performed to treat AC. Postoperative recovery is improved if drain is not present.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Drainoscopy: a doorway to the abdomen in the post-surgical patient

The ability to optically visualize the abdominal cavity in the post-surgical patient can prove to be invaluable, particularly when imaging studies and exam findings can be difficult to interpret. Post-surgical drains are often used and provide a window into the abdominal cavity. In this proof-of-concept study, it is demonstrated that an ordinary drain can be used as a point of access and hence a doorway into the abdominal cavity. This technique has been termed drainoscopy, and the approach is demonstrated with video supplement.

Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery.

METHODS

In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC.

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to February 2014), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to February 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials involving 453 patients with complicated appendicitis who were randomised to the drainage group (n = 228) and the no drainage group (n = 225) after emergency open appendectomies. All of the trials were at a high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection. The hospital stay was longer in the drainage group than in the no drainage group (MD 2.04 days; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.62) (34.4% increase of an 'average' hospital stay).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. It is not clear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Abdominal drainage after an emergency open appendectomy may be associated with delayed hospital discharge for patients with complicated appendicitis.

The value of drains as a fistula mitigation strategy for pancreatoduodenectomy: something for everyone? Results of a randomized prospective multi-institutional study

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized, controlled trial investigating intraperitoneal drain use during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) had a primary goal of assessing overall morbidity. It was terminated early with findings that routine elimination of drains in PD increases mortality and the severity and frequency of overall complications. Here, we provide a follow-up analysis of drain value in reference to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF).

METHODS

Nine institutions performed 137 PDs, with patients randomized to intraperitoneal drainage (N = 68) or no drainage (N = 69). The Fistula Risk Score (FRS), a 10-point scale derived from four validated risk factors for CR-POPF, facilitated risk adjustment between treatment groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in fistula risk between the two cohorts. Overall, CR-POPF rates were higher in the no drain group compared to the drain group (20.3 vs. 13.2%; p = 0.269). Patients with negligible/low FRS risk had higher rates of CR-POPF when drains were used (14.8 vs. 4.0%; p = 0.352). Conversely, there were significantly fewer CR-POPFs (12.2 vs. 29.5%; p = 0.050) when drains were used with moderate/high risk patients. Lastly, moderate/high risk patients who suffered a CR-POPF had reduced 90-day mortality (22.2 vs. 42.9%) when a drain was used.

CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis suggest that drains diminish the rate and severity of CR-POPF in patients with moderate/high risk, but they could possibly be avoided in the roughly one third of patients with negligible/low risk.

A case of splenic rupture: a rare event after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is generally safe and well-accepted. In rare cases, it is associated with complications (intra- e postoperative bleeding, visceral injury and surgical site infection). Splenic lesion has been reported only after direct trauma. We report an unusual case of splenic rupture presenting after "uncomplicated" LC.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 77-year-old woman presented with distended abdomen, tenderness in the left upper quadrant and severe anemia 12 hours after LC. Clinical examination revealed hypovolemic shock. Abdominal computed tomography confirmed the diagnosis of splenic rupture, and the patient required an urgent splenectomy through midline incision. The post-operative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on 7th postoperative day.Splenic injury rarely complicates LC. We postulate that congenital or post-traumatic adhesions of the parietal peritoneum to the spleen may have been stretched from the splenic capsule during pneumoperitoneum establishment, resulting in subcapsular hematoma and subsequent delayed rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic rupture is an unusual but life-threatening complication of LC. Direct visualization of the spleen at the end of LC might be a useful procedure to aid early recognition and management in such cases.

Drainage vs. non-drainage after cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a retrospective study

Many surgeons practice prophylactic drainage after cholecystectomy without reliable evidence. This study was conducted to answer the question whether to drain or not to drain after cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis. A retrospective review of all patients who had cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia, was conducted from April 2010 to April 2012. Data were extracted from hospital case files. Preoperative data included clinical presentation, routine investigations and liver function tests. Operative data included excessive adhesions, bleeding, bile leak, and drain insertion. Complicated cases such as pericholecystic collections, mucocele and empyema were also reported. Patients who needed therapeutic drainage were excluded. Postoperative data included hospital stay, volume of drained fluid, time of drain removal, and drain site problems. The study included 103 patients allocated into two groups; group A (n  =  38) for patients with operative drain insertion and group B (n  =  65) for patients without drain insertion. The number of patients with preoperative diagnosis of acute non-complicated cholecystitis was significantly greater in group B (80%) than group A (36.8%) (P < 0.001). Operative time was significantly longer in group A. All patients who were converted from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy were in group A. Multivariate analysis revealed that hospital stay was significantly (P < 0.001) longer in patients with preoperative complications. There was no added benefit for prophylactic drain insertion after cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis in non-complicated or in complicated cases.

Is a drain necessary routinely after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for an acutely inflamed gallbladder? A retrospective analysis of 457 cases

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic surgery for an acutely inflamed gallbladder, most surgeons routinely insert a drain. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the need for drainage in these cases, and the use of a drain remains controversial.

METHODS

This retrospective study divided 457 cases into two groups according to whether or not a drain was inserted and reviewed the surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In this study, 231 patients had no drains and 226 had drains. Both groups were comparable in terms of pathology, demographics, and operative details. There was no statistical difference in operating time, visual analog scale for pain, or postoperative hospital stay. Morbidity occurred in 49 cases (10.7%) and did not differ significantly between the two groups. No mortality occurred in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of a drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for an acutely inflamed gallbladder had no effect on the postoperative morbidity. Therefore, this retrospective study supports that it is feasible not to insert a drain routinely in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients who have an acutely inflamed gallbladder.

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1831 participants were randomised to drain (915 participants) versus 'no drain' (916 participants) in 12 trials included in this review. Only two trials including 199 participants were of low risk of bias. Nine trials included patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis exclusively. One trial included patients undergoing elective and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and one trial did not provide this information. The average age of participants in the trials ranged between 48 years and 63 years in the 10 trials that provided this information. The proportion of females ranged between 55.0% and 79.0% in the 11 trials that provided this information. There was no significant difference between the drain group (1/840) (adjusted proportion: 0.1%) and the 'no drain' group (2/841) (0.2%) (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.37) in short-term mortality in the ten trials with 1681 participants reporting on this outcome. There was no significant difference between the drain group (7/567) (adjusted proportion: 1.1%) and the 'no drain' group (3/576) (0.5%) in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events in the seven trials with 1143 participants reporting on this outcome (RR 2.12; 95% CI 0.67 to 7.40) or in the number of serious adverse events in each group reported by eight trials with 1286 participants; drain group (12/646) (adjusted rate: 1.5 events per 100 participants) versus 'no drain' group (6/640) (0.9 events per 100 participants); rate ratio 1.60; 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87). There was no significant difference in the quality of life between the two groups (one trial; 93 participants; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.63). The proportion of patients who were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy seemed significantly lower in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (one trial; 68 participants; drain group (0/33) (adjusted proportion: 0.2%) versus 'no drain' group (11/35) (31.4%); RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.75). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (five trials; 449 participants; MD 0.22 days; 95% CI -0.06 days to 0.51 days). The operating time was significantly longer in the drain group than the 'no drain' group (seven trials; 775 participants; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI 2.69 minutes to 7.30 minutes). There was no significant difference in the return to normal activity and return to work between the groups in one trial involving 100 participants. This trial did not provide any information from which the standard deviation could be imputed and so the confidence intervals could not be calculated for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further well designed randomised clinical trials are necessary.

Drain After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Calculous Cholecystitis. A Pilot Randomized Study

Drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is used without evidence of its efficacy. The present pilot study was designed to address this issue. After laparoscopic gallbladder removal, 15 patients were randomized to have a drain positioned in the subhepatic space (group A) and 15 patients to have a sham drain (group B). The primary outcome measure was the presence of subhepatic fluid collection at abdominal ultrasonography, performed 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain, use of analgesics, and morbidity. Abdominal ultrasonography did not show any subhepatic fluid collection in eight patients (53.3 %) in group A and in five patients (33.3 %) in group B (P = 0.462). If present, median (range) subhepatic collection was 50 mL (20-100 mL) in group A and 80 mL (30-120 mL) in group B (P = 0.573). No significant differences in the severity of abdominal and shoulder pain and use of parenteral ketorolac were found in either group. Two biliary leaks and one subhepatic fluid collection occurred postoperatively. The present study was unable to prove that the drain was useful in LC for ACC, performed in a selected group of patients.

Routine drain placement in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: an expanded retrospective comparative study of 755 patients and review of the literature

Routine drain use after laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is still practiced by many bariatric surgeons. After a patient in our program experienced intestinal obstruction secondary to a drain, we reevaluated our practice and hypothesized drains would be of no benefit and potentially harmful after LRYGB. Retrospective record review of all patients undergoing LRYGB from August 2005 to August 2009 was performed. As we changed our practice in December 2006, we have two comparable groups: one with a drain placed at surgery and one without. All operations were otherwise performed in an identical fashion by three fellowship-trained university surgeons. We compared outcomes between the two groups, particularly regarding gastrojejunal (GJ) leaks. Jejunojejunal (JJ) leaks, unlikely to be captured by these drains, were not studied. A total of 755 LRYGBs were performed during the study period, the first 272 patients with routine drains and the subsequent 483 without. Demographics were statistically similar between the two groups. There were four GJ leaks in the drain group (1.47%) and three in the nondrain group (0.62%). Among the drain patients, two required operation and two were treated nonoperatively. Among the nondrain patients, two required operation and one was treated nonoperatively. The leak and reoperation rates between the groups were not statistically different (p = 0.154 and p = 0.514). Routine drains likely have no benefit after LRYGB. Clinical parameters such as tachycardia, fever, oliguria, and increasing abdominal pain should guide further investigation for and treatment of a leak.

Strangulated intestinal hernia through a drain site

INTRODUCTION

Intra-abdominal drains have been widely used in order to prevent intra-abdominal fluid accumulation and detection of anastomotic leakage.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We herein report a case of small bowel herniation followed by strangulation in an 82 year old woman who had undergone sigmoidectomy for colorectal cancer.

DISCUSSION

Although several complications related to drain usage such as drainsite infection, hemorrhage and intestinal perforation may occur, intestinal incarceration through drain site is rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

Drains must be used with caution and only if indicated. Careful insertion, regular post-operative or post-removal inspection is strongly recommended.

Peritonitis from an abdominal wall biloma: a unique reason to avoid prophylactic surgical drainage

Prophylactic drainage of the peritoneal space after major surgery is widely practised despite evidence against its efficacy. We describe the case of a 56-year-old woman who underwent a converted cholecystectomy and whose correctly sited abdominal drain resulted in the formation of a biloma between the external and internal oblique musculature. Subsequent leakage from the biloma into the abdominal cavity presented as peritonitis days after surgery, necessitating an emergency laparotomy. This case represents the first reported description of an abdominal wall biloma as a complication of post-cholecystectomy abdominal drainage. The evidence surrounding prophylactic drainage is discussed.

Single-Port Cholecystectomy Through the Lateral Ring of the Left Inguinal Hernia

Background: Single-port surgery was developed by the evolution of the laparoscopy. The advantage of this new method is mainly cosmetic, but the risk of the hernia—owing to the larger port—increased. Case report: A 71-year-old man was admitted with a left lateral inguinal hernia and gallbladder stones. After preparation of the sac of the hernia, a single-port was inserted into the lateral ring and a cholecystectomy was performed. The operation was completed by the reconstruction of the abdominal wall using a polypropylene mesh. The total operating time was 85 minutes. Conclusion: In the case of the combined operation, the defect of the abdominal wall could be used as a location of the single port, and the trauma of the abdominal wall could be avoided. This is the first publication about single-port cholecystectomy where the ring of the inguinal hernia was used as a placement site of the single port.

Prevention of infectious complications after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis--the role of routine abdominal drainage

PURPOSE

Complicated acute appendicitis is still associated with an increased morbidity. If laparoscopy has been accepted as a valid approach, some questions remain concerning intra-abdominal abscess formation. Routine prophylactic drainage of the abdomen has been proposed. However, this practice remains a matter of debate, poorly validated in the literature. With the present study, we investigated the impact of drainage in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHOD

This is a case match study of consecutive patients operated on by laparoscopy in a single institution. One hundred and thirty patients operated for complicated appendicitis (local peritonitis without perforation, with perforation, or with periappendicular abscess) with prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage were matched one by one to 130 patients operated without drainage. Uncomplicated appendicitis and generalized peritonitis were excluded. Primary endpoint was surgical complications and secondary endpoints were transit recovery time and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Patients without drain had significantly less overall complications (7.7% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Moreover, the absence of drainage was of significant benefit for transit recovery time (2.5 vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.0068) and length of hospital stay (4.2 vs. 7.3 days, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

No benefits were observed for prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity during emergency laparoscopic treatment of complicated appendicitis. For this reason, this practice may be abandoned.

Getting ready for surgery through natural orifice

The technical background of pure Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) surgery has not been created yet, but ever more reports are being published on hybrid NOTES surgery and single-port surgical interventions, which have appeared as a result of device development inspired by NOTES. Surgery carried out through single ports only differ from pure NOTES in respect of the access orifice, which makes learning this technique extremely important for anyone whishing to implement a surgical intervention through a natural orifice. Numerous publications have appeared by now on the single port or hybrid NOTES surgery of various organs (gall bladder, kidney, large bowel). Based on these, most surgery is safely feasible through one port as well, but the surgery takes longer and it is not significantly less painful than a “traditional” laparoscopic intervention. Long-term results are still missing, primarily in what concerns the frequency of infections and post-operative hernia. We have received an answer to part of the dilemmas formulated in the White Paper. Besides specially bent laparoscopic devices robot technology and devices controlled by extracorporal magnets may both be a solution to the problem of triangulation. The transvaginal and transgastric paths do not seem to cause significant risks from the viewpoint of infections, but the closing of viscerotomy in the case of the stomach is far from being solved. In respect of learning and practicing new surgical techniques no method exists at the moment that could be considered the “gold standard”. Besides the earlier questions there are new ones as well awaiting partial solutions (e.g. necessity of drain following a NOTES surgery, oncologic principles).

Peritoneal inflammatory response of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy with carbon dioxide and air pneumoperitoneum

BACKGROUND

The immunologic and physiologic effects of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus traditional surgical approaches are poorly understood. Previous investigations have shown that NOTES and laparoscopy share similar inflammatory cytokine profiles except for a possible late-phase tissue necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) depression with NOTES. The local peritoneal reaction and immunomodulatory influence of pneumoperitoneum agents in NOTES also are not known and may play an important role in altering the physiologic insult induced by NOTES.

METHODS

In this study, 51 animals were divided into four study groups, which respectively underwent abdominal exploration via transgastric NOTES using room air (AIR) or carbon dioxide (CO(2)) or via laparoscopy (LX) using AIR or CO(2) for pneumoperitoneum. Laparotomy and sham surgeries were additionally performed as control conditions. Measurements of TNF-alpha, interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), and IL-6 were performed for peritoneal fluid collected after 0, 2, 4, and 6 h and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, and 7.

RESULTS

Of the 45 animals assessed, 6 were excluded because of technical operative complications. The findings showed that LX-CO(2) generated the most pronounced response with all three inflammatory markers. However, no significant differences were detected between LX-CO(2) and either NOTES group at these peak points. No differences were encountered between NOTES-CO(2) and NOTES-AIR. Subgroup comparisons showed significantly higher levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6 with NOTES-CO(2) than with LX-AIR on POD 1 (p = 0.022) and POD 2 (p = 0.002). The LX-CO(2) subgroup had significantly higher levels of TNF-alpha than the LX-AIR subgroup at 4 h (p = 0.013) and on POD 1 (p = 0.021). No late-phase TNF-alpha depression occurred in the NOTES animals.

CONCLUSION

The local inflammatory reaction to NOTES was similar to that with traditional laparoscopy, and the previously described late-phase systemic TNF-alpha depression in serum was not reproduced. At the peritoneal level, NOTES is no more physiologically stressful than laparoscopy. Furthermore, regardless of which gas was used, the role of the pneumoperitoneum agent did not affect the cytokine profile after NOTES, suggesting that air pneumoperitoneum is adequate for NOTES.

Litigation following groin hernia repair in England

PURPOSE

Since 1995, litigation following surgical procedures has cost the National Health Service (NHS) over 1.3 billion GBP (Great British Pounds)/2.1 billion USD (United States Dollars)/1.4 billion Euros. Despite it being the most commonly undertaken general surgical operation, no study has examined clinical negligence claims in England following groin hernia repairs.

METHODS

Data from the NHS Litigation Authority of all claims made from 1995 to 2009 was obtained and interrogated.

RESULTS

In total, 398 claims were made. Of these, 209 cases had been settled, of which 144 (46.6%) were in favour of the claimant to a cost of 7.35 million GBP/12 million USD/7.93 million Euros. Testicular injury and chronic pain featured in 40% of all claims. Visceral injuries and injuries requiring corrective procedures were the only predictors of a successful claim (P = 0.015 and P = 0.002, respectively). Claims associated with visceral and vascular injuries were more likely to occur in laparoscopic than in open repairs. Sexual dysfunction and chronic pain resulted in the highest average payouts of 85,467 GBP/140,565 USD/92,177 Euros and 81,288 GBP/133,693 USD/87,674 Euros, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients should be fully informed of the incidence of testicular injury and chronic pain during the consent process. Approaches minimising visceral and vascular injury particularly in laparoscopic repair should be adopted to reduce litigation and improve patient care.

Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

There is little agreement on prophylactic use of drains in anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery despite many randomized clinical trials. Results of these trials are contradictory, quality and statistical power of these individual studies have been questioned. Once anastomotic leakage has occurred it is generally agreed that drains should be used for therapeutic purposes. However, on prophylactic use no such agreement exists.

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of safety and effectiveness of routine drainage and non-drainage regimes after colorectal surgery. The following hypothesis was tested: The use of prophylactic anastomotic drainage after elective colorectal surgery does not prevent development of complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The studies were identified from CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Controlled Clinical Trials Database, Trials Register of the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing drainage with non-drainage regimes after anastomoses in elective colorectal surgery were reviewed. Outcome measures were: 1. mortality; 2. clinical anastomotic dehiscence; 3. radiological anastomotic dehiscence; 4. wound infection; 5. reoperation; 6. extra-abdominal complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and cross-checked by the two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The RCTs were stratified based on experimental group, according to clinical homogeneity (external validity).

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 1140 patients enrolled (6 RCTs), 573 were allocated for drainage and 567 for no drainage. The patients assigned to the drainage group compared with the ones assigned to non-drainage group showed: a) Mortality: 3% (18 of 573 patients) compared with 4% (25 of 567 patients); b) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence: 2% (11 of 522 patients) compared with 1% (7 of 519 patients); c) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence: 3% (16 of 522 patients) compared with 4% (19 of 519 patients); d) Wound infection: 5% (29 of 573 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 567 patients); e) Reintervention: 6% (34 of 542 patients) compared with 5% (28 of 539 patients); f) Extra abdominal complications: 7% (34 of 522 patients) compared with 6% (32 of 519 patients).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.