1
|
Coccolini F, Shander A, Ceresoli M, Moore E, Tian B, Parini D, Sartelli M, Sakakushev B, Doklestich K, Abu-Zidan F, Horer T, Shelat V, Hardcastle T, Bignami E, Kirkpatrick A, Weber D, Kryvoruchko I, Leppaniemi A, Tan E, Kessel B, Isik A, Cremonini C, Forfori F, Ghiadoni L, Chiarugi M, Ball C, Ottolino P, Hecker A, Mariani D, Melai E, Malbrain M, Agostini V, Podda M, Picetti E, Kluger Y, Rizoli S, Litvin A, Maier R, Beka SG, De Simone B, Bala M, Perez AM, Ordonez C, Bodnaruk Z, Cui Y, Calatayud AP, de Angelis N, Amico F, Pikoulis E, Damaskos D, Coimbra R, Chirica M, Biffl WL, Catena F. Strategies to prevent blood loss and reduce transfusion in emergency general surgery, WSES-AAST consensus paper. World J Emerg Surg 2024; 19:26. [PMID: 39010099 PMCID: PMC11251377 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-024-00554-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 07/01/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Coccolini
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisia, 56124, Pisa, Italy.
| | - Aryeh Shander
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
| | - Marco Ceresoli
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Monza University Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Ernest Moore
- Ernest E. Moore Shock Trauma Center, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Brian Tian
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Cesena Hospital, Cesena, Italy
| | - Dario Parini
- General Surgery Department, Rovigo Hospital, Rovigo, Italy
| | | | - Boris Sakakushev
- General Surgery Department, University Hospital St George, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
| | - Krstina Doklestich
- Clinic of Emergency Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Fikri Abu-Zidan
- The Research Office, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
| | - Tal Horer
- Vascular and Trauma Surgery, Orebro Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
| | - Vishal Shelat
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Timothy Hardcastle
- Department of Trauma and Burns, Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital and Department of Surgical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| | - Elena Bignami
- Anesthesia Department, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy
| | - Andrew Kirkpatrick
- General, Acute Care, Abdominal Wall Reconstruction, and Trauma Surgery Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Dieter Weber
- Department of General Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Igor Kryvoruchko
- Department of Surgery No. 2, Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Ari Leppaniemi
- General Surgery Department, Melahiti Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Edward Tan
- Emergency Surgery Department, Radboud Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Boris Kessel
- Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Rappaport Medical School, Haifa, Israel
| | - Arda Isik
- Division of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Camilla Cremonini
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisia, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Lorenzo Ghiadoni
- Emergency Medicine Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Massimo Chiarugi
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisia, 56124, Pisa, Italy
| | - Chad Ball
- Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Pablo Ottolino
- Unidad de Trauma y Urgencias, Hospital Dr. Sótero del Río, Santiago de Chile, Chile
| | - Andreas Hecker
- Department of General, Thoracic and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
| | - Diego Mariani
- General Surgery Department, Legnano Hospital, Legnano, Italy
| | - Ettore Melai
- ICU Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Manu Malbrain
- First Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
| | - Vanessa Agostini
- Medicina Trasfusionale, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Mauro Podda
- Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Edoardo Picetti
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy
| | - Yoram Kluger
- General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Rambam Medical Centre, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | | | - Andrey Litvin
- Department of Surgical Diseases No. 3, University Clinic, Gomel State Medical University, Gomel, Belarus
| | - Ron Maier
- Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Belinda De Simone
- Department of Digestive and Emergency Surgery, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy
| | - Miklosh Bala
- Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Unit Department of General Surgery, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Aleix Martinez Perez
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), Valencia, Spain
| | - Carlos Ordonez
- Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia
| | - Zenon Bodnaruk
- Hospital Information Services for Jehovah's Witnesses, Tuxedo Park, NY, USA
| | - Yunfeng Cui
- Department of Surgery, Tianjin Nankai Hospital, Nankai Clinical School of Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China
| | | | - Nicola de Angelis
- General Surgery Department, Ferrara University Hospital, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Francesco Amico
- Discipline of Surgery, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
| | - Emmanouil Pikoulis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, Attikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), Athens, Greece
| | | | - Raul Coimbra
- General Surgery Department, Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA
| | - Mircea Chirica
- General Surgery Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France
| | - Walter L Biffl
- Division of Trauma/Acute Care Surgery, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Fausto Catena
- General Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Cesena Hospital, Cesena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aiko K, Kanno K, Yanai S, Sawada M, Sakate S, Andou M. Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2024; 13:37-42. [PMID: 38487615 PMCID: PMC10936717 DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_9_23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2023] [Revised: 05/22/2023] [Accepted: 06/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiyoshi Aiko
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Kiyoshi Kanno
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Shiori Yanai
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Mari Sawada
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Shintaro Sakate
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Masaaki Andou
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Banasiewicz T, Machała W, Borejsza Wysocki M, Lesiak M, Krych S, Lange M, Hogendorf P, Durczyński A, Cwaliński J, Bartkowiak T, Dziki A, Kielan W, Kłęk S, Krokowicz Ł, Kusza K, Myśliwiec P, Pędziwiatr M, Richter P, Sobocki J, Szczepkowski M, Tarnowski W, Zegarski W, Zembala M, Zieniewicz K, Wallner G. Principles of minimize bleeding and the transfusion of blood and its components in operated patients - surgical aspects. POLISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY 2023; 95:14-39. [PMID: 38084044 DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0053.8966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomasz Banasiewicz
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Endokrynologicznej i Onkologii Gastroenterologicznej, Instytut Chirurgii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Waldemar Machała
- Klinika Anestezjologii i Intensywnej Terapii - Uniwersytecki Szpital Kliniczny im. Wojskowej Akademii Medycznej - Centralny Szpital Weteranów, Łódź
| | - Maciej Borejsza Wysocki
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Endokrynologicznej i Onkologii Gastroenterologicznej, Instytut Chirurgii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Maciej Lesiak
- Katedra i Klinika Kardiologii Uniwersytetu Medycznego im. K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Sebastian Krych
- Katedra i Klinika Kardiochirurgii, Transplantologii, Chirurgii Naczyniowej i Endowaskularnej SUM. Studenckie Koło Naukowe Kardiochirurgii Dorosłych. Śląski Uniwersytet Medyczny w Katowicach
| | - Małgorzata Lange
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Endokrynologicznej i Onkologii Gastroenterologicznej, Instytut Chirurgii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Piotr Hogendorf
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Transplantacyjnej, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Łodzi
| | - Adam Durczyński
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Transplantacyjnej, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Łodzi
| | - Jarosław Cwaliński
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Endokrynologicznej i Onkologii Gastroenterologicznej, Instytut Chirurgii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Tomasz Bartkowiak
- Oddział Kliniczny Anestezjologii, Intensywnej Terapii i Leczenia Bólu, Uniwersytet Medyczny im. K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Adam Dziki
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Kolorektalnej Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
| | - Wojciech Kielan
- II Katedra i Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Chirurgii Onkologicznej, Uniwersytet Medyczny we Wrocławiu
| | - Stanisław Kłęk
- Klinika Chirurgii Onkologicznej, Narodowy Instytut Onkologii - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy im. Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie, Oddział w Krakowie, Kraków
| | - Łukasz Krokowicz
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Endokrynologicznej i Onkologii Gastroenterologicznej, Instytut Chirurgii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Krzysztof Kusza
- Katedra i Klinika Anestezjologii i Intensywnej Terapii, Uniwersytet Medyczny im K. Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu
| | - Piotr Myśliwiec
- I Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Endokrynologicznej, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Białymstoku
| | - Michał Pędziwiatr
- Katedra Chirurgii Ogólnej, Wydział Lekarski, Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum, Kraków
| | - Piotr Richter
- Oddział Kliniczny Chirurgii Ogólnej, Onkologicznej i Gastroenterologicznej Szpital Uniwersytecki w Krakowie
| | - Jacek Sobocki
- Katedra i Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej i Żywienia Klinicznego, Centrum Medyczne Kształcenia Podyplomowego, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny, Warszawa
| | - Marek Szczepkowski
- Klinika Chirurgii Kolorektalnej, Ogólnej i Onkologicznej, Centrum Medyczne Kształcenia Podyplomowego, Szpital Bielański, Warszawa
| | - Wiesław Tarnowski
- Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Onkologicznej i Bariatrycznej CMKP, Szpital im. Prof. W. Orłowskiego, Warszawa
| | | | - Michał Zembala
- Wydział Medyczny, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II w Lublinie
| | - Krzysztof Zieniewicz
- Katedra i Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Transplantacyjnej i Wątroby, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny, Warszawa
| | - Grzegorz Wallner
- II Katedra i Klinika Chirurgii Ogólnej, Gastroenterologicznej i Nowotworów Układu Pokarmowego, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wu AGR, Mohan R, Fong KY, Chen Z, Bonney GK, Kow AWC, Ganpathi IS, Pang NQ. Early vs late drain removal after pancreatic resection-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2023; 408:317. [PMID: 37587225 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03053-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 08/08/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Guan Ru Wu
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ramkumar Mohan
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Khi Yung Fong
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Zhaojin Chen
- Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Glenn Kunnath Bonney
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Adult Liver Transplantation Programme, National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119074, Singapore
| | - Alfred Wei Chieh Kow
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Adult Liver Transplantation Programme, National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119074, Singapore
| | - Iyer Shridhar Ganpathi
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Adult Liver Transplantation Programme, National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119074, Singapore
| | - Ning Qi Pang
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
- Adult Liver Transplantation Programme, National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
He S, Xia J, Zhang W, Lai M, Cheng N, Liu Z, Cheng Y. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 12:CD010583. [PMID: 34921395 PMCID: PMC8683710 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010583.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sirong He
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Jie Xia
- The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology on Infectious Diseases, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Wei Zhang
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The People's Hospital of Jianyang City, Jianyang, China
| | - Mingliang Lai
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Jiangjin Central Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- Department of Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zuojin Liu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yao Cheng
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Li Z, Li Z, Zhao L, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Deng Y. Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8:CD010168. [PMID: 34402522 PMCID: PMC8407456 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010168.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhuyin Li
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Zhe Li
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Longshuan Zhao
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Yao Cheng
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- Department of Bile Duct Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Yilei Deng
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dräger DL, Schmidt S. [Wound drainage after inguinal lymphadenectomy in malignant diseases]. Urologe A 2019; 58:555-558. [PMID: 30968174 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-019-0920-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- D L Dräger
- Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland. .,UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Berlin, Deutschland.
| | - S Schmidt
- UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Berlin, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Predictors of Lymphoceles in Women Who Underwent Laparotomic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Early Gynecologic Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2019; 16:ijerph16060936. [PMID: 30875912 PMCID: PMC6466375 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16060936] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2018] [Revised: 03/03/2019] [Accepted: 03/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
9
|
Zhang W, He S, Cheng Y, Xia J, Lai M, Cheng N, Liu Z. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 6:CD010583. [PMID: 29928755 PMCID: PMC6513487 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010583.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Zhang
- The People's Hospital of Jianyang CityDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary SurgeryNo. 180, Hospital RoadJianyangSichuanChina641499
| | - Sirong He
- Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Immunology, College of Basic MedicineNo. 1 Yixue RoadChongqingChina450000
| | - Yao Cheng
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Jie Xia
- Chongqing Medical UniversityThe Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology on Infectious DiseasesChongqingChina450000
| | - Mingliang Lai
- Jiangjin Central HospitalDepartment of Clinical LaboratoryNo. 65, Jiang Zhou RoadChongqingChina402260
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityDepartment of Bile Duct SurgeryNo. 37, Guo Xue XiangChengduSichuanChina610041
| | - Zuojin Liu
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Li Z, Zhao L, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Deng Y. Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5:CD010168. [PMID: 29741752 PMCID: PMC6494575 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010168.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhe Li
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary SurgeryNo. 1, Jianshe East RoadZhengzhouHenan ProvinceChina450000
| | - Longshuan Zhao
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary SurgeryNo. 1, Jianshe East RoadZhengzhouHenan ProvinceChina450000
| | - Yao Cheng
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical UniversityDepartment of Hepatobiliary SurgeryChongqingChina
| | - Nansheng Cheng
- West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityDepartment of Bile Duct SurgeryNo. 37, Guo Xue XiangChengduSichuanChina610041
| | - Yilei Deng
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary SurgeryNo. 1, Jianshe East RoadZhengzhouHenan ProvinceChina450000
| | | |
Collapse
|