Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies

Strategies to prevent blood loss and reduce transfusion in emergency general surgery, WSES-AAST consensus paper

Emergency general surgeons often provide care to severely ill patients requiring surgical interventions and intensive support. One of the primary drivers of morbidity and mortality is perioperative bleeding. In general, when addressing life threatening haemorrhage, blood transfusion can become an essential part of overall resuscitation. However, under all circumstances, indications for blood transfusion must be accurately evaluated. When patients decline blood transfusions, regardless of the reason, surgeons should aim to provide optimal care and respect and accommodate each patient's values and target the best outcome possible given the patient's desires and his/her clinical condition. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide comprehensive recommendations on organizational, surgical, anaesthetic, and haemostatic strategies that can be used to provide optimal peri-operative blood management, reduce, or avoid blood transfusions and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) performed through conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) versus robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

Materials and Methods

Perioperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications, were retrospectively analyzed in 731 patients with gynecologic malignancies who underwent transperitoneal PLND, including 460 and 271 in the CLS and RAS groups, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test or Student's t-test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 53 ± 13 years in the RAS and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The mean body mass index was 23.4 ± 4.8 kg/m2 and 22.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2 in the RAS group and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The operative time, blood loss, and number of resected lymph nodes were 52 ± 15 min, 110 ± 88 mL, and 45 ± 17, respectively, in the RAS group and 46 ± 15 min, 89 ± 78 mL, and 38 ± 16, respectively, in the CLS group (all P < 0.01). The rate of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications was 6.3% and 8.7% in the RAS and CLS groups, respectively (P = 0.17).

Conclusion

Shorter operative time and lower blood loss are achieved when PLND for gynecologic malignancies is performed through CLS rather than RAS. However, RAS results in the resection of a greater number of pelvic lymph nodes.

Principles of minimize bleeding and the transfusion of blood and its components in operated patients - surgical aspects

One of the target of perioperative tratment in surgery is decreasing intraoperative bleeding, which increases the number of perioperative procedures, mortality and treatment costs, and also causes the risk of transfusion of blood and its components. Trying to minimize the blood loss(mainly during the operation) as well as the need to transfuse blood and its components (broadly understood perioperative period) should be standard treatment for a patient undergoing a procedure. In the case of this method, the following steps should be taken: 1) in the preoperative period: identyfication of risk groups as quickly as possible, detecting and treating anemia, applying prehabilitation, modyfying anticoagulant treatment, considering donating one's own blood in some patients and in selected cases erythropoietin preparations; 2) in the perioperative period: aim for normothermia, normovolemia and normoglycemia, use of surgical methods that reduce bleeding, such as minimally invasive surgery, high-energy coagulation, local hemostatics, prevention of surgical site infection, proper transfusion of blood and its components if it occurs; 3) in the postoperative period: monitor the condition of patients, primarily for the detection of bleeding, rapid reoperation if required, suplementation (oral administration preferred) nutrition with microelements (iron) and vitamins, updating its general condition. All these activities, comprehensively and in surgical cooperation with the anesthesiologist, should reduce the blood loss and transfusion of blood and its components.

Early vs late drain removal after pancreatic resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reducing clinically relevant post-operative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) incidence after pancreatic resections has been a topic of great academic interest. Optimizing post-operative drain management is a potential strategy in reducing this major complication.

METHODS

Studies involving pancreatic resections, including both pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatic resections (DP), with intra-operative drain placement were screened. Early drain removal was defined as removal before or on the 3rd post-operative day (POD) while late drain removal was defined as after the 3rd POD. The primary outcome was CR-POPF, International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) Grade B and above. Secondary outcomes were all complications, severe complications, post-operative haemorrhage, intra-abdominal infections, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of stay, readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The studies had a total of 8574 patients, comprising 1946 in the early removal group and 6628 in the late removal group. Early drain removal was associated with a significantly lower risk of CR-POPF (OR: 0.24, p < 0.01). Significant reduction in risk of post-operative haemorrhage (OR: 0.55, p < 0.01), intra-abdominal infection (OR: 0.35, p < 0.01), re-admission (OR: 0.63, p < 0.01), re-operation (OR: 0.70, p = 0.03), presence of any complications (OR: 0.46, p < 0.01), and reduced length of stay (SMD: -0.75, p < 0.01) in the early removal group was also observed.

CONCLUSION

Early drain removal is associated with significant reductions in incidence of CR-POPF and other post-operative complications. Further prospective randomised trials in this area are recommended to validate these findings.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.

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

In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. 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 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 intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Use of drain versus no drain We included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage. The outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies. There were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Open drain versus closed drain There were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis. Early versus late drain removal There were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Predictors of Lymphoceles in Women Who Underwent Laparotomic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gynecologic Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Lymphoceles could represent a detrimental complication after retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Our aim was to elucidate predictors of lymphoceles. Methods: Between 2011 and 2017, medical records of consecutive women who underwent laparotomic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for FIGO stage I or II gynecologic cancer were reviewed. Results: A total of 204 women, including those with lymphoceles (n = 31) and symptomatic lymphoceles (n = 7), were reviewed. According to multivariable analysis, parity (odds ratio = 0.59, p = 0.003), adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (odds ratio = 2.60, p = 0.039), and peritoneal nonclosure without pelvic drainage (odds ratio = 2.31, p = 0.048) were predictors of lymphoceles. In addition, parity (odds ratio = 0.73, p = 0.03), hypertension (odds ratio = 2.62, p = 0.02), and peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.02) were predictors of complications. Conclusion: Low parity, adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy, and peritoneal nonclosure without pelvic drainage were associated with increased lymphocele formation. In addition, a lower complication rate was found in the peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage group; thus, peritoneal partial closure with pelvic drainage might be suggested for women who undergo laparotomic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.

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 last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017.

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 studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies 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 used the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.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. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.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 mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

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.This is an update of the review first published in 2015.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 June 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 June 2017), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 30 June 2017), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2017) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 30 June 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in people 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). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants).Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.